Summations Only

...no, we were talking about the words of a radical feminist blogger who is, so far as I know, unaffiliated in any way with the Atheist+ movement. I never claimed that the blogger had anything at all to do with Atheist+. The only point of the tangent was to cause you to abandon your argument from incredulity and acknowledge the existence of actual radical feminists (as a minority of feminists, for the love of sanity please do not start again with the strawman about painting all feminists in an extreme way so as to dismiss their reasonable arguments) by providing an example. I was never at any point talking about Atheist+ members, with the exception of mentioning Ms. Watson in nothing but positive terms and affirming that her discomfort was completely understandable and her treatment unconscionable.I think, crash, you've confused me with your other opponents here. In any case, I see no point in continuing the discussion with you here - you seem to not even be able to acknowledge that some feminists have extreme views regardless of what I or anyone else says, and it's not really on-topic here anyway, just a small tangent at least in my case.

This is interesting to me, because in order to know Ms Watson's individual desires or feelings, "elevator guy" would have needed to, as you say, "read her mind."He had no way to reasonably know that Ms Watson would feel objectified by a simple proposition to have some coffee. I still understand why she felt the way she did......but the standard of polite action that you're holding to requires that people read each other's minds to determine how they would or would not be offended in relatively mundane situations.I don't think your position here passes the "reasonable person" test that we would normally use in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

The first time I heard of Ms Watson was on a podcast, and she made no comment regarding misogyny or propositions or discomfort away from witnesses. I found her interesting. I had, until this story came out, no way of knowing how she would react to a request for a talk over coffee regardless of circumstance.I think you're assuming prior knowledge that would not necessarily be available to everyone in such a situation. It's also an invitation to generally and non-sexually socialize. I've asked many people, including female acquaintances, to talk over some coffee without any interest in sex. I still fail to see how "elevator guy" could reasonably know, in advance, that she would feel objectified. Neither you nor crash have demonstrated that "elevator guy" knew or should have known in advance that Ms Watson would find such a proposition to be misogynistic or sexualizing or threatening. On this point you'll find no disagreement with me. The elevator proposition was "elevator guy's" first advance; I'm sure he was perfectly capable of telling that Ms Watson found it unwelcome, but only after he had first made it. As I am incapable of predicting the future or reading minds, I have typically experienced anxiety when introducing myself to a woman to whom I am attracted for the first time...because I do not know how she will react to my advance until I make it. If I had knowledge of how a proposition would be accepted in advance, rejection anxiety would never have been an issue. I think it's reasonable to assume that "elevator guy" was similarly unable to predict future events, and that his ability to tell whether his advances were welcome was first predicated on him actually making the advance. Human beings do not always consider all of the variables that may affect others in a given predicament - frankly, there are too many. Often, the likely effect of an action in a given situation becomes painfully obvious after the fact, but was not even considered beforehand.Way back when this thread started, I noted that, as a rather large man, I have been threatening to others in confined spaces simply by my presence, without saying a word.I haven't always considered this effect before speaking to another elevator passenger. Granted, I've never asked anyone out while riding an elevator, but that seems more incidental to the fact that that, while I'm aware of the fact that I can be imposing unintentionally, I don't always think about that before acting or speaking.Actions that appear obviously inadvisable after the fact are not always readily apparent beforehand. Perhaps Ms Watson was speaking to others, and the elevator encounter was the first time he was able to gain her attention long enough to ask whether she'd like to speak with him?I can understand Ms Watson's discomfort, even as I find some of the arguments used to defend her perplexing. I can also understand, so some degree, several possible points of view for "elevator guy," and I find some of the statements made in his "defense" to be abhorrent.The entire event, I think, makes something of a mountain out of a molehill - some understandable discomfort after an innocent but perhaps ill-advised encounter has become a battle in which opposing sides fling charges of misogyny or hate-filled epithets suggesting rape or utterly dismissing minor but real discomfort through comparisons to instances of far more severe misogyny.I offend others from time to time. I am offended by others from time to time. Generally it's a minor thing, and nobody really cares; very few people actively seek to offend, but also very few of us make a big deal when we are slightly offended.What seems strangest to me is that the mountain-making has occurred from the defenders of both sides...though neither Ms Watson nor "elevator guy" to my knowledge made a huge deal over the incident.Ms Watson made a blog post explaining how she felt and that she found it ironic given her own recent public words, and others proceeded to DEFCON 1 on their behalf.

Was that what "elevator guy" was doing?Are you sure?

...So, in the current cultural landscape of the US, it's racist if a white man drops the n-bomb, but not racist if a black man calls a white man a "cracker?"It's sexist if a man says that all women are gold-digging whores, but not sexist if a woman calls all men wife-beating rapists?I'm pretty sure that racism and sexism are about discrimination based on race and gender, respectively, and that they have nothing to do with whether one race/gender has "privilege." Racism is racism, and it's always wrong regardless of who's being racist. Same with sexism.

No. It's not.That's one aspect of racism. It's not the only one.

quote:

---

racism
   [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

---

A black supremacist is just as racist as a white supremacist, regardless of their "privileged" status or lack thereof.Racism results in privilege when one race carries greater political power than another, but racism is not only privilege. Racism can exist where no actual privilege exists - the Asian father who tells his daughter that she cannot marry a black man is just as racist as the white father who does the same.

I posted it, a direct quote from dictionary.com, just a bit upthread.Crash ignored it."Debating" with him ceases to be anything meaningful and diverges wholly into his equivocation and semantic games.Apparently it's just fine to use racist remarks against a "privileged" race. I can agree that racism (or any bigotry) combined with privilege in the form of political power acting upon that bigotry becomes a problem orders of magnitude worse than an individual case could ever be, but that's simply noticing the difference between small-scale and systemic discrimination.To actually say that racism doesn't exist or that it's less racist (which is different and distinct from saying "less of a problem" or "less bad") when privilege does not exist is nonsense. Racism is the disease; privilege just amplifies its expression and impact.

quote:

---

racism
   [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

---

Anyone who believes that one race is inherently superior to another or simply hates members of one or more races is a racist. Whether the racist's race actually makes up the "ruling class" or has privilege in a given culture is relevant only to how much of an effect on society that particular racism will have; regardless of the presence or absence of privilege, that belief, all expression of it, and any systemic policy intended to reflect it, is still racist.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

quote:

---

discriminatory
   [dih-skrim-uh-nuh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA
adjective
1.
characterized by or showing prejudicial treatment, especially as an indication of racial, religious, or sexual bias: discriminatory practices in housing; a discriminatory tax.
2.
discriminative ( defs. 1, 2 )

---

I'm pretty sure "cracker" denotes a discrimination, a bias, a prejudice, toward Caucasians as opposed to other races. It doesn't have all the historical baggage that comes with other racial terms, it's not associated with any form of oppression, and so it doesn't carry the same sting, but you're not using the word "discriminatory" as defined in the common dictionary.

Right. If someone calls me a "fucking cracker" at work, I can't sue for harassment and racial discrimination.Just like men cannot possibly be the victims of sexual harassment, because they are the "privileged gender."Oh, wait.

Of course! There are no stereotypes of white people....Oh, wait. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

A man can also be sexually harassed by a coworker of equal or lower rank. A subordinate woman can sexually harass her boss, or someone with the same job title.I think you need to go watch the sexual harassment workplace videos again.

Crash, you are a textbook case of selective vision.You ignore repeated postings of the dictionary definitions of words whose meanings are under contention when the dictionary disagrees with you.In your response to this post: You ignore the racism bit and instead focus on sexual harassment.And you were wrong in your response, too.It's interesting that your only defense now is to utilize ad hominem attacks on your opponents. Rather than being able to admit you are wrong, or even simply continue to disagree, you accuse others of being liars, and say that we have a vendetta against you, as opposed to the alternate hypothesis that we might simply be convinced of our positions, and that in this case those positions run counter to yours.

I think the problem is more accurately describes as "special pleading."Crash claims that x is racist when one person does it, and is not racist when another person does it.Given the exact same activity, whether it be stereotyping, speaking racial epithets, etc, it is only racist if the "privileged" race is the aggressor.If using racial epithets is racist, then it's racist. To say otherwise requires special pleading.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Because you're not using any accepted definitions for the term "sexual harassment."Sexual harassment does not require privilege. It merely requires a sex-related act that creates a hostile working environment. That can be a joke at the expense of a gender, it can be unwanted touching, it can be demands for sexual favors, etc - and while it can occur between people with different amounts of "power" in the organization, this is not required.Let's provide another demonstration. Once upon a time, my boss quoted the Bible at me, knowing I was an Atheist, in a performance review. This was workplace discrimination based on my religion. Atheists are not the "privileged" class, so you should agree.If the tables were reversed and I had said to him "your God doesn't exist and your religion is wrong," whether I was his boss or not, I would also be guilty of religious discrimination and harassment in the workplace.Privilege makes -isms worse, it allows one class to implement policies and make the discrimination systemic, but racism most certainly does still exist even when privilege does not - it's just not as significant in social justice terms. In absolute terms, however, racism is racism.Your example of medical treatment in a previous reply is more well-directed; however, it does not meet the dictionary definition of racism that I posted earlier.Twice.Here, I'll post it again:

quote:

---

racism
   [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races

---

A doctor using race as a method of directing questions and treatment for diseases that are actually race-linked is not significantly different from asking if a patient has diabetes in his family history. It does not demonstrate a belief that one race is superior to another, it does not create any policy or system of government by which individuals of a given race will be treated as inferior, and it certainly does not espouse hatred for a race.ABE:Now, if the doctor had instead refused treatment due to race (regardless of which race is in question and who has "privilege") for a life-threatening disease, then we would be witnessing an example of racism. See the definition. Simply noting a difference can be as simple as recognizing that one person is Caucasian and another is Hispanic...but that only becomes racism when one decides that one of those races is superior or inferior.Noting that people of African descent can have sickle-cell anemia and acting accordingly is not racism, while saying that their susceptibility to sickle-cell makes them inferior would be racism.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

It's not, but that's not the intent of the Atheist+ definitions.They're trying to restrict the field of topics to those examples of -isms that present the largest challenges to social justice - instances where privilege is being used to enact bigoted policies and systemic discrimination.And I can basically understand why - systemic sexism is a more significant problem for society than individual examples of a woman objectifying a man, for example. There is a systemic wage gap between the genders, for example.The problem is that Crash has argued that privilege-enhanced -isms are the only examples of -isms. They may be all that's talked about on the Atheist+ forums, but the definition of "racism," as one example, is abundantly clear - "racism" is the belief or expression that one or more races are superior or inferior to one or more other races, a hatred of one or more races, or any government or other policy when systematically enforces such concepts.That last bit, the policies, can only happen when one group has sufficient privilege to enact them...but that's only part of the definition.And crash is absolutely wrong about the "way people act." Comedians are one thing - some people enjoy race-based humor. Others do not, and there are those who oppose using terms like "cracker" just as much as other racial epithets.