I can describe things I don't like without using the term oppression. I just don't agree that oppression means "unfair" and "unjust", if you said those things were unfair and unjust then I might've agreed. We can agree to disagree on the definition, we both understand each other but are at an impasse.

I see, well our main disagreement is based on your definition of atheism. Theism as a proposition is based on belief or faith and is not strictly a claim of knowledge, that is gnosticism.

Mariem-webster definition:
belief in the existence of a god or gods

dictionary.com
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

These are the definitions I subscribe to and the second definition even includes how this relates to the definition of atheism. The opposite of belief in the existence of God is a lack of a belief in the existence of God. If we can't agree on this, then we can't go anywhere because you are misconstruing every single position in the debate around theism.

If you revise the definitions as I have suggested then agnostic atheism seems to be the most reasonable default position. This means having the stance that you do not know if God exists and you do not believe he does. It is natural to have a stance of non-belief in the case of being uncertain or uninformed, really your argument doesn't change at all.

I agree with @Saphsin if we're talking about agnosticism as in, an inability to progress beyond knowing whether Gods exist and an unwillingness to say you either believe or don't believe because you don't know, you need to have evaluated all the evidence beforehand. This position cannot be reached when you are completely in the dark.

Replace agnosticism with agnostic atheism.

Is oppression synonymous with unfairness and injustice? Then sure... I don't really understand your definition. If I replace "oppression" with "unfair" then I agree.

I see your point, the West often allows those of an ethnic minority to hold themselves to different standards. The vast majority of Australians would never say that Australian culture belongs to any ethnicity or race but many would say Aboriginal culture belongs to Aboriginals and only them. We see vastly different consequences for when a powerless minority believes in ethnic histories than when the majority does. I don't like these double standards but I do recognise that it's complicated, probably too complicated to talk about in a thread that is on a totally different topic.

My point is that different groups of people have their own traditions and histories and ways of understanding things and that you, as a westerner, do not get to tell others how to govern unless some serious moral boundary has been crossed — BitconnectCarlos

That's your view. Yet even within if I adopted your view, a serious moral boundary has been crossed. Ethnic histories and their perpetuation are problematic and immoral, and they're at the heart of a conflict that is causing much pain.

But this is changing, don't you see? The old "melting pot" idea is on its way out and "lets talk about our culture and our people" is on its way in. Surely you've been noticing this in the West. — BitconnectCarlos

Not for the majority group but yes. I argue about this regularly, I do notice that the West is allowing or even celebrating minorities having ethnic and racial histories. It's garbage, I don't support that.

Leftists describe oppression as unfairness and injustice? I'm pretty sure they use my definition. They just say that the group with the power is white, male, cisgender, ablebodied patriarchy - whatever, and they oppress minorities by abusing their power, to limit access to political and economic resources, as well as other types of resources. On the national level, within businesses, within homes, within political discourse and so on.

I think we could analyse the political and economic resources in a domestic setting. To say that the husband controls the finances, makes all the important decisions, dictates what the wife is allowed to say or wear and so on, and call that oppression.

Oppression can be applied to many different circumstances and we adjust the "resources" to match the setting but it's always based on control and abuse of power. I don't think your definition works at all, unfairness and injustice occur in so many contexts, we can't label all of them oppression. You can't describe discrimination as being synonymous with oppression either. I don't think someone could take your definition and accurately define what is or isn't oppression, it's inadequate.

Just a quick aside, have you seen this sweet JBP mix? — BitconnectCarlos

lol

So I think we're just defining it differently and that's okay because no one has a monopoly on the definition of the word... it's vague. You make solid points and all I can do at the end of the day is state my position and give my take and it's okay if we disagree. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't like your definition, I doubt you would even accept describing anything unfair as "oppression". A guy cheats in a race, is that "oppression"? Injustice is oppression? No... nono, I can't. Even you can't possibly use the word oppression as you've described.

Would you call just a general social undesirability (e.g. someone who is ugly and socially awkward) a form of oppression? If I were to be totally honest, I would. I think people who struggle socially are quite limited, generally speaking. — BitconnectCarlos

Are you asking if I'm saying social undesirability can be unfair? Yes, it is but I don't consider oppression to mean unfair so, according to my definition, not at all.

b) I would like to know who Israel is deporting — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure I'd just say similar things as others already have, so I'll leave that be. As for "Arab Christians", I mean, okay. This is like someone debunking racism in the US by saying "Asians are doing alright", I don't want to respond to this kind of logic seriously, you're smart, give me a break.

Very poorly, — BitconnectCarlos

Yep, well, Israel is held to Western standards, don't act like Israel is being persecuted unfairly when any other Western nation would get the same treatment.



India recognises many ethnicities, there is no "Indian" ethnicity. China is being condemned for their racist treatment of minorities regularly. What's your point anyway? The "rest of the World" is generally doing very poorly on racism, sexism, tribalism, it's terrible. Doing something just because the rest of the world is doing it, that's a pretty lousy justification, nobody is going to accept that.

The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about, the culture is inclusive for all and while it's not perfect, it's getting better. The West is just exporting the way they criticise their own culture to others and I support that. How many more times do we need to see history repeat itself before we're allowed to tell others to stay away from this dangerous thinking?

Do you see how the situation in Israel is being exacerbated by the perpetuation of ethnic histories? It doesn't appear you accept Israel is expelling ethnic minorities but on the basis of the importance of the Jewish ethnicity in Jewish culture, wouldn't it make sense that Israel cannot assimilate or include non-Jewish minorities into their culture? That non-Jews cannot share in a Jewish culture you say requires Jewish heritage, doesn't that seem like a problem?

Second question, if a Western nation, explicitly tied their culture to an ethnic or racial group, how do you think that would be received by the other Western nations?

Ok, but consider: you can be a well-fed slave or a slave who is being starved and tortured. Are these two slaves facing the same level of oppression? Or put another way: is oppression based on the lack of potential good, or the existence of actual bad? — coolazice

Oppression is not the aggregate of all the bad things that happen to you, but since food is a resource, the deprivation of food can be considered oppression in the appropriate circumstance. That circumstance is the purposeful, politically motivated withholding of food by a group abusing its power. Maybe you can construe torture as oppression in the right circumstance, for me, it depends on how we characterise or categorise torture in the particular circumstance. I've given a roadmap for determining whether something is oppression or not but there is room for interpretation.


Discrimination is not oppression, it needs to be an abuse of power, a judicious use of power shouldn't be described as oppression. For example, I don't think jailing murders is oppression, however, I might consider disproportionately imprisoning a type of person as oppression or a certain type of crime as oppression. Jailing political dissenters or on the basis of race for example.

It seems to me that you are just broadly giving a condemnation of hierarchies. More precisely, the losers in merit-based hierarchies, as being oppressed by their inability to outcompete or outdo their peers. Whether we're talking about genetics, forms of presenting oneself or other forms of nature/nurture characteristics, essentially, anything that is not one's choice, no matter how unfair it may seem, none of these things constitute oppression.

You have still not given your definition for oppression, you just seem to be describing undesirable outcomes as oppression. I can't imagine what definition of oppression says it's oppression that people don't want to sleep with you. if it's something close to mine then your interpretation needs to be explained.

Agnosticism means uncertainty as you say, however, since atheism requires a lack of belief, these two are compatible. An agnostic atheist lacks a belief in God but cannot be sure as to whether God exists or not. While a gnostic atheist also lacks a belief in God but they lack this belief because they believe they know that there's no God. An agnostic theist might not be sure about whether there's a God but they choose to believe there is one despite not knowing for sure. A gnostic theist believes in God and is sure that there is a God.

However, I'm not even sure if you're providing a stance on agnosticism vs gnosticism because you talk about "beginning from the default position". Which implies that upon learning more, we could switch from the default position to a position of gnosticism, as we learned more. Could you clarify, if a human values intellectual honesty, what exactly are you asking them to do?

So your beliefs, traditions, holidays, mannerisms, language, clothing - whatever you would describe as Jewish culture, it all what, disappears without an ethnic history?

Others are managing to maintain their culture without ethnic histories, in Australia, you got Australian citizenship, you're Australian. You don't need to share any specific ethnicity or ethnic history to practice Australian culture. I don't accept your premise. Do you at least see the problem with ethnic histories?

I'm sure you can manage to keep your culture and lose the ethnic history but if you absolutely insist you can't - okay? Maybe some forms of Islam can't stop being anti-LGBTQ, but you'll join me in saying they need to change, same shit here. Time for reform.

This forum doesn't mod politically, you can make racist arguments here without being modded. Mods will actually call you and your comments racist and not mod you. I think this is a quality issue, if your thread is low-quality, inflammatory and hateful then it's not going to produce a good discussion anyway. How can "Chinese people are inferior to Europeans" produce a good discussion? Standards are good for producing the best environment for discussing philosophy, I'm not in favour of just allowing people to post garbage because "censorship is bad".

So a side-effect of competition is oppression? If a person has a low sexual market value and nobody wants to date them, that's a form of oppression? Oppression requires a group with power to abuse that power to restrict the political and economic resources of others.

Jobs and positions in society represent political and economic resources, so that fits nicely into my explanation of oppression. However, I don't accept that just any old reason which is outside of one's control constitutes oppression. We need someone, a group, a system or something to be doing the oppressing. "Nature" doesn't cut it.

I understand what you're saying but you're leaving the door open for people to say that oppression can actually be a good thing. I'm not sure if I want to agree that things like social convention, manners, parental expectations are all forms of oppression... Expectations is a very low bar to be setting for oppression.

Narration includes but is not limited to speaking actual words in your mind. Your attention, for example, is part of how you narrate your world. If you are walking down the street and admiring the buildings, or the cars, or the people, or the birds, or looking at your phone - these choices alter your experience. What emotions you experience, how you interpret things, what you choose to focus on, are part of your narration with or without speaking actual words in your mind. It all plays a role in your style of narration which is influenced by your personal biases and characteristics.

What are you trying to replace it with? Are you sure you'll be able to effectively make that transition? — BitconnectCarlos

You're giving so much credit to ethnic histories, the role they serve, it doesn't need to be replaced with anything. They should understand themselves as individuals, which I'm sure even the most ardent believer in ethnic histories already does, it doesn't need to be supplemented with ethnic histories.

No offense, but it's also enormously arrogant in practice. Are you going to honestly just tell Arabs to stop practicing Islam or observing certain cultural rituals that have developed outside of Islam? What on Earth gives you that position as an outsider? Are you just so sure that everything they do and how they process and understand things is flat out wrong? Ok. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not telling anyone to stop practising Islam, or anything like that. Understand this, I am condemning the role of ethnic, religious, racial, cultural histories in politics, prejudice, hate and geopolitics. "Outsider", why would my position be limited to my ethnicity, religion, race or culture, I don't like that kind of thing either. What I can or can't say isn't based on such things and where it is, treating people differently based on such things becomes justified, including the logic of things such as racism. Arabs are humans to me, Jewish people are humans. Humans commenting on the issues of other humans, nothing unusual or problematic with that.

We have also seen some very, very bad things happen when we, especially as outsiders, try to erase people's history and culture. Do not do it. You can try to change bad practices and you can question, but do not erase. — BitconnectCarlos

People can keep their culture, their ethnic histories gotta go.

Look at the situation in Israel from the perspective of ethnic histories. The Jews expelled the Palestinians, stole their land - land they claim is theirs, they are continuing to oppose the Palestinian people through apartheid. The Jews were forced off their land by Arabs, they have been persecuted by Arabs for thousands of years. And on it goes.

You're the one talking about "Jews did this" and "Jews have that", who else is a Palestinian supposed to blame but the "Jews" in your way of recounting history. Do you not see how racism becomes justified? There's no escape either, we can't change our ethnicity, you've inherited acts of aggression against other tribes through your history, you've inherited a history of persecution by other tribes. Is it arrogance to call such an obvious problem out or just basic sense.

would you deny the existence of a group such as, say, the han chinese? do uyghurs exist in your world? it doesn't matter because they exist in our world. — BitconnectCarlos

I acknowledge them as loosely defined ethnicities, I don't acknowledge ethnic histories, beyond a history of how some DNA exists in some region because of a historical event, or a history of tribalism. I acknowledge tribalism exists in our world, otherwise, I wouldn't have to spend time condemning it.

Because it would be like telling the Russians to stop drinking alcohol or the Indians to stop practicing yoga. — BitconnectCarlos

I can't condemn the practices of cultures? Why not? You won't condemn things provided they're part of someone's culture?

All I'm saying is that I was born into a culture & a group and I believe that story and that history has something to offer to the world -- value. I think it can help others solve their problems and I think people from different cultures with their own unique experiences and judgments genuinely can offer different, valuable insights that can broader one's horizons and make people and society better. And that starts with a knowledge of who you are. People should have some sort of roots or identity. — BitconnectCarlos

The Jews have a continuous history spanning thousands of years, who have warred with other ethnic groups, who have special rights to land, who have a unique experience and history. Your DNA gives you a special history that people without your DNA don't have. Isn't that right? That's how you've been talking in this thread, which means you would phrase it exactly as I did.

How can someone look at the middle east and say ethnic histories are making the world a better place? What about the WW2 examples you love so much, what about the role ethnic histories played there?

There are lines that if you don't cross when it comes to practising your "culture", which is often little more than some kind of tourist attraction. How can you actually be practising the culture of Jewish merchants or farmers thousands of years ago when you're living in an advanced economy in the 21st century? Nonsense. Don't bring your ethnicity into politics, don't advance the interpretative relevance of ethnicity past the point of it being more important than the many other ways to see others, etc.

This isn't about me, this is about the Jewish people. The Jewish people have the Torah, countless prayers, numerous holidays which have been celebrated for thousands of years that signal their connection to the land. — BitconnectCarlos

There are no "Jewish" people, and it is about you, these are your arguments. The Jewish people don't share possessions, they don't share a history, they don't share a religion, they are a loosely defined ethnoreligious group of individuals who barely have anything to do with each other.

You can have your own thoughts on this type of thinking but it's really just a fact of life, especially in the Middle East. I'm not going to tell the Palestinians or the Arabs or anyone else for that matter that they don't have a right to their own ethnic or cultural history (or to view things in that way.) I just wish they would tell that story in a different way, one that isn't so hostile to the Jews. — BitconnectCarlos

Props on not being a hypocrite? Too bad it's a subject where it'd be better if you were. Why wouldn't you tell the Palestinians or Arabs to cease believing in ethnic, cultural or religious histories when you're aware that the middle east is being torn apart by sectarian violence? For what reason are you unwilling to condemn this tribalistic, destructive thinking?

"Iran, Hamas and Saudi Arabia do it too" is probably the worst excuse imaginable for doing anything. Western opinion of these nations is extraordinarily low, people generally condemn this kind of shit.

Israeli government is based on a parliamentary democracy — BitconnectCarlos

I know.

I feel ties to the Jewish people and Israel - sue me. I'll present a religious/cultural justification, sure, but I would never expect everyone to be convinced by it. If that case works, great, but if not I'll fall back on principles of general statehood that would apply to any other country or group. I would never tell you that you're not allowed to engage or relate to your ancestors or ethnic history. It's all about how you do it. If you don't want to that's fine too, but don't act like no one else has a right to connect to their people's past. — BitconnectCarlos

Why not? I'm a pragmatist, why should I care about "ah but check my DNA, I have a long history and belong to a special people who have done all these things over thousands of years" when I know it's 1. stupid and 2. destructive?

Why is oppression only about access to political and economic resources? What about the disabled? They get oppressed by people's preconceived attitudes and treatment. Nature oppresses the sick or those with various conditions. Societies place standards on jobs and behavior and that can oppress the disabled. Standards oppress. — BitconnectCarlos

Bitconnect, is this forum turning you? This sounds like something banno or streetlightx would say...

How do you define oppression? What does it mean to be "oppressed" by attitudes and treatment? And are you calling social convention a system of oppression?

I was using racial oppression as the term Benkei suggest to you.

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

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 is no need to help people organise a pissing contest to see which group is the most oppressed. Oppression is created primarily through the deprivation of resources, be they political or economic. Complete oppression would mean no political or economic resources, which could be observed in slavery. The greater the access to political and economic resources, the more free someone is and therefore the less oppressed they are. To measure whether someone is oppressed or not, we should evaluate their resources. To be clear, by political resources, I mean things such as rights and protections. Economic resources could mean access to wealth, employment, and so forth. In the case of the Palestinians, they are oppressed because Israel restricts their access to many fundamental political rights and protections, through their poverty and disproportionate lack of resources. Some people will talk about oppression in smaller environments than the state level, don't know how I feel about that.

I think economic and political resources are the main ones but I'm not objecting to other kinds of resources and access being part of the discussion either, just to make that clear.

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.

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.

Racism.

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.

I thought that would be your position but doesn't that mean your definition is incomplete? It makes no mention of equity.

You share basically nothing with your "Jewish ancestors", no history, no culture, no religion, nothing. It's like comparing 21st century British Catholics to 15th century British Catholics, how can that comparison, possibly make any sense? They have as much in common as an Englishman today and an Arab living in Saudi Arabia... who am I kidding, the Englishman shares much more with some Saudi businessman than some 15th-century peasant.

Ethnic, religious and racial histories promote and justify racism and tribalism, that's why they need to be delegitimised as valid ways of viewing history. Why are you tracking and identifying with the history of the Jews over thousands of years? The history is literally "The Jews did this, the Egyptians did that, The Arabs were here at this time...".

Maybe Israel can begin a discussion about compensation when Arab countries agree to compensate the 600-800,000 Jews who were expelled and dispossessed of their property between '48-'72 (and lets not forget compensating all the descendants.) Or when the Palestinians apologize for attacking Israel in '47-'48 with militias before their Arab neighbors. They could also compensate Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

What is "Israel", what are the "Arab countries", who are the "Palestinians"? These terms just narrativise things as though these are the names of individuals, this just allows people to ignore the reality of what these groups really are. Unthinking, unliving, concepts which can't think, act, talk or do anything. The political entities that you're referring are ruled by autocrats, who act in accordance with domestic and geopolitical goals, profits and their other individual political objectives. 99.99% of the people referred to by these group names are peons in political apparatuses which don't care about them and over which they have no control.

I understand that the middle-east, in particular, subscribes to this way of thinking, but far from that being a justification for you to do it, it's half the reason the place is such a mess. Look at the sectarian violence in Iraq and Syria, that's not something to aim for.

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?

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'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.

You're quite sensitive, comically so.

Looking at your thread here and your other discussion, name a poster who responded to you, who you're pretty sure understood what you were trying to say. We got a guy talking about drug abuse, we got a guy who totally ignored your OP and only responded to the title of your thread. In your other thread, just by your own responses, you know neither poster had any clue what you were talking about.

I'll help you out, none of them has any clue what you're talking about because you speak in vague generalities and draw unexplained conclusions from them. I don't know you, I don't care, I'm not trolling. There is no justification in your writing for why conformity leads to "the heart and mind being sluggish", "lifeless" and so forth. I lost interest but fair warning, I would assume anyone who responds to your OP has failed to understand your argument, be wary of people filling in your generalities with specifics that don't match your intentions. Best luck.

it is clear the human has descended into a pattern of conformity, thus making the mind and the heart dull, insensitive, sluggish, blind, unresponsive, almost lifeless. A second hand machine at best, that constantly breaks down — skyblack

It seems the human is not capable of looking at anything with fresh eyes or to adequately respond to the challenges life throws at him/her. Every new moment is met with the weight of the past and through the acquired filters. Thus all responses are partial and fragmentary. — skyblack

You say "thus" as though you've laid forth an argument but there's no argument, what is the "pattern of conformity" and what is the problem with it?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I think it's mostly a semantic discussion to be honest. — 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.

I think @ssu nailed it when he said that the narratives branched out in two completely separate ways. It's always useful to remember that the average citizen spends very little time thinking about politics, even within their own country, let alone a specific, smaller nation such as Israel. There's only space for a single paragraph of understanding at best, which is why "Hamas are terorists, Israel is just defending itself" is not necessarily a willfully ignorant representation but an understandable representation if we grant that a person is being informed about Israel via biased channels, with a very low amount of time researching or considering the topic beyond that. That being said, I have agreed with you, I suspect racism, anti-Islamic views, prejudice against the poor, all play their role. I think morality works like this in general, we don't apply it equally, we make exceptions based on our feelings. Public opinion for Gaza and Hamas, is extraordinarily low, for many reasons, this plays a big role.

Many unjust systems in history have been undone by the changing tide of the narrative, especially through peaceful protest. Like most things, it's complicated, it's not just because of racism, that's just one factor. When the narrative of Israel shifts, public opinion shifts. Personally, I feel discussions about Hamas usually just end up distracting from the reality of apartheid. Defenders of Israel use Hamas to derail the focus from Israel, same for mentions of anti-semitic violence in the US, all such things, just distractions and if these distractions become the narrative then Israel is off the hook in the eyes of the public.

Much of this thread has discussed this matter as though it is necessary to decide who is in the right. Hamas or Israel? When the only sensible answer is that they're both in the wrong. Even many of the critics of Israel seem to think we need to justify Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organisation, otherwise, we can't condemn Israel properly, this is not the case.