I agree with this standard definition. To repeat what added in the closed thread ... my point was that the ‘item’ of discrimination by which someone feels ‘superior’ or deems a group of others as ‘inferior’ is prejudice - be this based on ‘items’ including class, nationality, perceived ethnicity, actual ethnicity, sex, political inclination and intelligence. — I like sushi
It would be nonsensical if someone was to suggest that one could be ‘prejudice’ of a certain ‘race’ of people and not be ‘racist — I like sushi
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. — Judaka
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. — Judaka
I talk of nuances, "racism is wrong" is a foregone conclusion, we only debate nuances now. — Judaka
I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. — I like sushi
So it depends what one means by "racism", for example, is disproportionate police violence towards minorities violence 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. — Judaka
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:Individuals have biases.
Individual bias for or against a stereotype is prejudice.
In-group prejudice adversely against (an) out-group(s) that is enforced by the state, media, economy and/or military forces controlled by an in-group to the effective, if not complete, exclusion of (an) out-group(s), or CLASSISM, is Oppression; and where Oppression of an out-group is on the basis of (A) biological sex, it's theory & practice is SEXISM, (B) ethnicity-linguistic identity or territoriality, its theory & practice is TRIBALISM, (C) theocratic-schismatic group-identity, its theory & practice is SECTARIANISM, and/or (D) bureaucratic (or traditional) classification of "race" or skin color, it's theory & practice is RACISM. Therefore, while Oppressor and Oppressed alike are prejudiced, only the Oppressor Class (+ functionaries, collaborators & beneficiaries) controls Sexist, Tribalist, Sectarian & Racist systems of oppression.
(Note: Asking "Can an individual of any "identity" be e.g. racist?" is like asking 'can any individual be an army?' Context matters, the Oppressor-Oppressed situation must be considered. One must first determine which uniform (& tattoos) an individual, regardless of "identity", wears and flag (or colors) s/he flies as an indication of which army s/he belongs to and supports and thereby against whom – combatants and civilians alike.)
CLASSISM, refined by millennia of customary Divide-n-Control practices by almost "all peoples" on every continent, manifests and reproduces itself by instituting one, some or all of the (A, B, C, D) systems.
CAVEAT: Often, in many social or economic contexts particularly, individual members or communities identified as belonging to an Oppressed out-group will be co-opted (i.e. internalize by being indoctrinated) by the Oppressor in-group and collaborate with one, some or all of the systems of Oppressing themselves or another out-group for the exclusive benefit of the Oppressor in-group. Likewise, many non-elite, rank-n-file, proletariat individuals (i.e. the precariat), who "proudly" self-identify as belonging to the (historically dominant) in-group, collaborate in their own exploitation by refusing to acknowledge the pervasive reality of systemic in-group Oppression or enjoin in abolitionist solidarity with the Oppressed out-groups.
In-group prejudice adversely against (an) out-group(s) that is enforced by the state, media, economy and/or military forces controlled by an in-group to the effective, if not complete, exclusion of (an) out-group(s), or CLASSISM, is Oppression; and where Oppression of an out-group is on the basis of (A) biological sex, it's theory & practice is SEXISM, (B) ethnicity-linguistic identity or territoriality, its theory & practice is TRIBALISM, (C) theocratic-schismatic group-identity, its theory & practice is SECTARIANISM, and/or (D) bureaucratic (or traditional) classification of "race" or skin color, it's theory & practice is RACISM.
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. — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.