What is racism to you? What I find sad is that creativesoul argues that the white privilege framing is necessary to understand racism, meanwhile, it is the foundation for your discrimination. I am very interested @creativesoul what do you think about Banno's comments, is this something you support?

I think your views of racism are outdated, or simply wrong, you have informed yourself about the individual using your prejudices against a racial group. You specifically noted the race, sexual orientation and sexual identity of individuals and used your feelings about how you think people of that race, sexual orientation and sexual identity usually behave to discriminate against the individual. There is no other justification for your comments, only that.

What is racism to you? — Judaka

That will not do. You have made an accusation:

StreetlightX and Banno are horrible, they're racist, — Judaka

Present your notion of racism and explain why what I have written is racist, or rescind the accusation.

This is what you did in our debate about privilege, I wrote a lot and you said "I don't see why we should care about the feelings of the privileged" as if to suggest that was the crux of my argument. Parody? No, that's your style of argumentation.

My previous post contained all I needed to say, any insufficiency from your perspective is ignorance about how racism functions from mine.

Again, either present your notion of racism and explain why what I have written is racist, or rescind the accusation.

That it toxifies everything is all the more reason to be clear about our terms and not cede ground to them. More thought, not less. — StreetlightX

I don't think you could ask for a better two word propaganda tool. The costs associated with the analytic imprecision actually show up as gains in transmissibility and scope. It's even very very accurate for a slogan. — fdrake

Hey,

I appreciate the more even tone of this message. We certainly have points of difference that might be explored, but I'm feeling a little punched out about this topic. I've made my position clear (in bullet points, no less) and I think my reasoning has some merit although there are clearly those who disagree. I certainly feel confident that my position is not way off base or essentially wrong in any way.

Apologies if I'm shortchanging you by not responding fully, but it feels like I would just be retreading what I've already said.

I'm sure we can spar on another thread sometime soon. :)

Cheers

Probably, the different groups that promote the "white privilege" concept as the urgent object of the public debate have different intentions and aspirations. Likely, some of them strive for positive social change (by the way, it is the very arguable concept itself). Others want to bring the maximum possible change, to disbalance the homeostasis of the existing social system, and then manage and control the spectrum of accelerating processes. — Number2018

It seemed liked you almost agreed with me in a way here, but don't worry, I won't tell anyone. :D

I know that this notion of white privilege will continue to get pushed by the high-educated left, and my thoughts are of no consequence to that. I'm just saying that I think there are better alternatives. But maybe the struggle is more important than the goal.

You say we are trying to accomplish the same thing but I disagree, I think what I want is worlds apart from most people who want to talk about white privilege. — Judaka

But I've repeatedly said I don't want to talk about white privilege. I've raised the same point that you have, which is that it serves to reinforce racial categories (among my other criticisms). I thought maybe at least one person agreed with me to some degree...No?

Oh well

PS - As annoying as they are, you might stop feeding the trolls. They go away if you ignore them.

stop feeding the trolls. — Pro Hominem

Thank you. Few things are as deeply pleasurable, on a philosophy forum, as being called a Troll by one's interlocutors.

Here's the intellectual ancestor of Trolls such as we:



Ugly bastard, ain't he?

Again, either present your notion of racism and explain why what I have written is racist, or rescind the accusation. — Banno

Again, present your notion of privilege so that I might actually be uncomfortable with how your using it.

I think your views of racism are outdated, or simply wrong, you have informed yourself about the individual using your prejudices against a racial group. You specifically noted the race, sexual orientation and sexual identity of individuals and used your feelings about how you think people of that race, sexual orientation and sexual identity usually behave to discriminate against the individual. There is no other justification for your comments, only that. — Judaka

I do agree, what I meant was that the white privilege framing results in different outcomes being prioritised, different methods of tackling systemic racism becoming legitimate and different means of identifying progress. I don't consider myself to be closely aligned in my goals to most of these other posters at all. Only in recognising systemic racism and objecting to it, past that, there's more disagreement than agreement.

Put simply, it is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is the injury because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not. — creativesoul

You mean like having to deal with a lack of fathers in the home and high rate of black-on-black crime?

As if whites don't have problems that non-whites don't have to deal with.

According to this:
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics

...blacks commit more than their fair share of hate crimes, which can only mean that non-blacks experience more than their fair share of being victims of hate crimes committed by blacks.

StreetlightX and Banno are horrible, they're racist... — Judaka

Asked twice, you have failed to present your notion of racism and explain why what I have written is racist. Nor have you rescinded the accusation.

This merely repeats the accusation, without showing where I am supposed to have done this.

The conclusion is that your accusation is unsupported.

Asked twice, you have failed to present your notion of racism and explain why what I have written is racist. Nor have you rescinded the accusation. — Banno

Judaka did respond with the following, which goes some way to ticking those boxes:

you have informed yourself about the individual using your prejudices against a racial group. You specifically noted the race, sexual orientation and sexual identity of individuals and used your feelings about how you think people of that race, sexual orientation and sexual identity usually behave to discriminate against the individual. There is no other justification for your comments, only that. — Judaka

I happen to disagree that it follows that you're racist, Banno, but Judaka did try to justify it.

Besides the whole oppressor/victim narrative, what differences are there between the way you discriminate against people based on their whiteness and how others may discriminate against others based on their blackness? What's the logical difference? You want to be very careful about giving validity to the idea that you can use statistics, anecdotes, feelings about a race to inform yourself about or characterise an individual. Because it may even be true that white people are more likely to dislike the white privilege framing for bad reasons but once you start using that to characterise disagreement with the framing as a result of their race, you aren't really much different or really any different from what you're supposedly condemning.

Why can't one characterise black people as criminals if they're disproportionately more likely to be if you can characterise white people as being merely offended about white privilege just because they're disproportionately more likely to be? You tell me the difference.

As I said, that repeats the accusation without adding any support. Repeating the accusation is not a justification.

I am the primary carer for a person with a disability, a wheelchair user. I entered this conversation with that perspective, in response to a thoughtless opening post. I used the example of stairs because I have personal experience with the frustration caused by the built environment excluding certain people because of their disability.

At one stage I asked folk to consider stairs as a form of privilege...

Or you might deny the obvious, or claim it unimportant, belittle those affected, distance yourself from responsibility, twist it so that it becomes about you, bury it in arguments about other things, put up more walls and barriers so that you don't feel uncomfortable. — Banno

That's exactly what @Judaka and @Pro Hominem have done. See for example @Pro Hominem simply dismissing the issue in this post.

@Isaac's contribution led me to The Origins of “Privilege”, and especially the discussion of "nice" people. I'm sure @Judaka and @Pro Hominem are nice people. That is irrelevant. It does not prevent them from participating - explicitly or inadvertently - in oppressing others.

Recognising the personal advantages one has obtained as a result of systemic issues is a way for nice people to discover their part in systemic oppression. Understanding that one is privileged is one way to start change.

Recognising that one is privileged is a beginning.

Perhaps @Judaka is too young or sheltered to understand how offensive his accusation is. It might have been to his advantage to consider what he thinks racism is, and to then specify why he thinks what I said was racist.

For the most part this forum is light entertainment. Occasionally important issues are discussed. This is an important issue - as is evidenced by both the passion of those involved and the headlines in todays news.

That' my friend, is pretty much the whole of what I have to say on the issue. I will refrain from further comment on this unfortunate thread unless provoked.

Thanks.

Your opinions about me are convenient for you because they allow you to dismiss me and my opinions. Just as you tried to do by talking about my race. On one hand you complain about heavy-handed comments and on the other, you deliver your own. I am not sure what is worse, being a racist or belittling the disabled and twisting it so it becomes about me, hard choice.

I appreciate creativesoul at least trying to defend the white privilege framing, as far as I think, you are out of your depth on this topic. The way you've responded to either me or @Pro Hominem has been things such as ad hominem, straw-manning, mocking with "yawn" and so on. You still don't seem to appreciate that what you are doing is offering a framing, using contentious language, it's just facts for you.

Moreover, the hypocrisy, in how you decided to characterise our statements based on a prejudice you have against "white people", in a topic like this - it's astounding. I would not accuse you of something so disgraceful if I didn't believe it was warranted. I think you made a good choice in not answering my question, I hope it was because you recognised it would be difficult to justify your behaviour and not actually because of these reasons you've given to leave.

Of the things you have presented from a clinical(?) setting, it seems that the preponderance at least indicate that there may be detriment to the use of the term in a general setting, but that it can be constructive with a more sophisticated audience or a more sophisticated presentation. Would you say that I have characterized that accurately? — Pro Hominem

I don't think the evidence goes that far. It could still be the other way around (the negative effects are the smaller, more specific group, and the positive effects generalise). There's nothing that I know of to tell us about the size of the group likely to be negatively affected by the term, only that the existence of such a group can be inferred from the experimental results.

The same goes for the possibility of the left being blind to the political harm the term might do. I think it's relevant to consider (hence my entry to this discussion, to point out that it's function in discourse is an empirical matter), but merely considering it does not at this stage lead to a conclusion that it is of net detriment to any political aims, only that there is an issue we need to be aware of when deliberately considering political rhetoric.

There's a difference between having an emotionally driven interpersonal conversation and a deliberately thought out political campaign. Only the latter need really consider the net political effect of using the term, in the former there should be no reason at all why people can't contextualise enough to see what the other person is probably trying to say regardless of any ambiguity or connotations.

I share your concern that it may be nothing more than a distraction. I have phrased this by saying I think it lacks utility to foster change, and that it misses the point. I think we are saying most of the same things there, but I invite you to distinguish — Pro Hominem

I do share your concern about distraction, but I have not yet reached the conclusion that this is because the phrase lacks the utility to foster change, it may or may not. My thoughts about the psychological object of much of this distraction would be well off-topic and probably of little interest to most, but it would be of no consequence whether the phrase had utility or not. For example, I think the phrase 'Me Too' had incredibly powerful utility to foster change, I still think the conversation held in association with it was largely a bourgeois distraction. I don't know if I'm taking the quote out of context, but...

I think it's time to go join the riot. — Banno

...would be more useful, I think.

Besides the whole oppressor/victim narrative, what differences are there between the way you discriminate against people based on their whiteness and how others may discriminate against others based on their blackness? — Judaka

Why on earth would you premiss judgement of any act of discrimination with "besides the whole oppressor/victim narrative"? The oppression is literally the whole point. No-one is politically concerned about the technical accuracy of the statistical inferences. No-one is politically concerned with the occasional ignoring of outliers for rhetorical ease. We're not equally offended about classing all blacks as criminals as we would be about classing all ginger people as freckly, because you'd have to be some kind of heartless robot to see those two errors in homogeneity bias as equally problematic.

We frequently use group identifiers to summarise a range of disparate opinion and even in doing so ignore outliers and minority dissonance. Whether we do so to oppress (or maintain oppression) or not is entirely the point.

Just as you tried to do by talking about my race. — Judaka

Suitable provocation.

Where did I talk about your race?

Justify your claim.

Sure, the level of moral severity differs, arguably, between examples of racism. I am not equating racism to other kinds of prejudice. If I can demonstrate racism towards "privileged" racial groups, would you counter that they are privileged?

We frequently use group identifiers to summarise a range of disparate opinion and even in doing so ignore outliers and minority dissonance. — Isaac

The difference between this and bigotry is when you use an individual's belonging to a group to characterise their opinions and prejudice against them.

There is no problem with saying that black Americans are disproportionately criminal in an appropriate context but there is a problem with using that fact to discriminate against individual black Americans. It isn't wrong just because it oppresses people. It violates all rules of decency and fairness. Your objection to it can't be solely based on how it is used to oppress people?

I've flicked back over this thread, too.

I re-read the denials.

I re-read white middle class cis hetro males begging that the word "privilege" not be used because it upsets them. — Banno

Perhaps you are not referring to my denials, or Asif's (who isn't white) or anyone but just @Pro Hominem but it doesn't make much difference.

That's it? Laughable.

Enough.

I can't imagine what you think a more egregious example might be but okay.

If I can demonstrate racism towards "privileged" racial groups, would you counter that they are privileged? — Judaka

Yes, of course. As I thought I'd made clear in my previous post, no one cares about trivial attribution errors. Racism is about the oppression of people by attributing racial generalisations. It is not just attributing racial generalisations.

Besides which, no such thing has even taken place here. At no point in time did banno or streetlight say anything which even attributed views or characteristics to people based on their race. The comment you quoted says nothing more than that there are white middle class cis hetro males who beg that the word "privilege" not be used because it upsets them. There's not even a hint of an accusation that they do so because they're white middle class cis hetro males (and that's what all such people do).

True, streetlightx hasn't said anything racist in this thread but my statements there were not based on just this thread. I think it is appropriate to point out that your definition of racism, which necessitates oppression is not one that I agree with and I have never used the word with that definition in mind.

The quote does not say that there "are" people like that who do that, the quote says that posters here who formulated perfectly coherent criticism of the white privilege framing are just white middle class cis hetro males who beg that the word "privilege" not be used because it upsets them. I believe pro hominem is the poster being referred to here. He clearly says that he re-read posters in this thread and is characterising those posters with his comments.

I think it is appropriate to point out that your definition of racism, which necessitates oppression is not one that I agree with and I have never used the word with that definition in mind. — Judaka

There exists a definition of racism which is a) the most common definition, and b) extremely offensive if one is accused of it. You're either ignorant of this (in which case you need to educate yourself before posting about such a subject), or you know this but used the term anyway. Either a cheap political stunt to promote your idiosyncratic use, or a ploy to deliver the offense one meaning carries whilst only suffering the burden of proof the other does. Reprehensible either way.

the quote says that posters here who formulated perfectly coherent criticism of the white privilege framing are just white middle class cis hetro males who beg that the word "privilege" not be used because it upsets them. — Judaka

Yep. So no racism there even by your own definition.

Judy, as is well known, likes to fantasize about me, even when - or rather especially when - not engaged in conversation with me.

In any case, it's no accident that certain posters here get so incredibly offended when either racially, sexually, or economically marked. They find it an affront to their iNdIVIDuAlITy and a denial of their InTrInSiC SeLf WoRtH. There's no greater horror to these snowflakes than being construed as social or cultural agents who don't, in fact, occupy a position of pristine universality. Being marked in any such way is only ever for Others. Do it instead to these beings of pure, skinless, reason, and they'll lose their comprehensive shit.

What about sexism is that also based on oppression? Or specism, classism, ageism, or really any of the isms which refer to discrimination based on identity?

Also, when you say most common, where is it the most common? Do all dictionaries define it as you do? What authority defines it only as you do that makes it a question of ignorance for me to not share yours?

I noted the lack of presence of a black voice... — Banno

:brow:

That's odd. I'm made up of sooo many different ones.

In context, what have you decided? — fdrake

It doesn't matter what I have decided for the point that was being discussed.

The point is that words are being used in a way that is not typical so as to elicit the correct moral response. I'd rather have an accurate description and let people make up their own minds, that is all.

It offends me, not because I can't handle the label privileged put on me, but because it is deemed necessary to spoonfeed me the correct behaviour by manipulating the meaning of words.... it insults my intelligence.

To add to that, it's also offending to constantly be told what it is you are offended about, even after explicitly stating that that is not the case.... as if your self-reported experience doesn't matter because you have to be some self-deluding idiot that can only be saying these things to justify his abject moral character.

Does that seem like a fair complaint to you?

Does that seem like a fair complaint to you? — ChatteringMonkey

The point is that words are being used in a way that is not typical so as to elicit the correct moral response. I'd rather have an accurate description and let people make up their own minds, that is all. — ChatteringMonkey

To add to that, it's also offending to constantly be told what it is you are offended about, even after explicitly stating that that is not the case.... as if your self-reported experience doesn't matter because you have to be some self-deluding idiot that can only be saying these things to justify his abject moral character. — ChatteringMonkey

Moral instruction can be distasteful when the values+perspectives to be imputed go against something in you, yeah. Which of your experiences does the concept of "privilege" go against?