Summations Only

Yes, when you say those things, the first is sexist and the second is racist. (I specify because otherwise just saying "yes they're sexist and racist" would lead Hooah to falsely claim that I was claiming they were both racist and both sexist.)

It is sexist, but I don't have the time and you don't have the attention or maturity to have the concept of "patriarchy" explained to you, but the short answer - which I know you will think is stupid, but it's nonetheless true - is that by appropriating the privilege that accrues to men via patriarchy (it's a thing about patriarchy that women can do this by affirming patriarchal privilege, just trust me), this is a form of discrimination on the basis of privilege that accrues on the basis of sex.Again, we see that it always returns to privilege. You cannot discriminate without privilege. There's just no such thing - it's like wet without water, it makes no sense.

Well, it's just without a doubt that the white race has the most racial privilege. That's completely undisputed. Like they say, being white is "easy mode." I don't know what "white power" is supposed to mean, though.And yes, I agree with the stipulation. That's why I said I agreed under the stipulated conditions, and flat out fucking told you that they would be vanishingly rare as to be impossible. Which is why, in general, it's impossible for black people to racially discriminate against whites. It's just completely unheard of for black people to be in a position of racial privilege over white people. It's hard to imagine how that could even be possible. But that's not privilege. It's certainly not privilege accruing on the basis of race. And finally, your example isn't something that happened. Jesus Christ, Hooah, where did I say that it did? Correcting your misrepresentations of my position in every single post is just fucking exhausting. Would you stop, already? Are you ready to admit that you're wrong? Because you are. You're just fundamentally wrong on the facts. 1) I've supported my position by reference to sociology and critical race theory, never by assertion that you should believe me because I say so. 2) I live in Washington DC, which is one of the blackest cities in the United States. It's widely called a "Chocolate City."I'm not wrong, and I've presented a dozen arguments that prove it which you've all ignored. Hooah, it's time for you to admit that you're just fundamentally wrong on the facts, and "dammit you're wrong and you're stupid because you won't admit it" isn't much of an argument but it's the best you've been able to do.

Wow. We can agree on something. It's too bad you don't understand why. Ah durr, what is partarky? I r 2 stupid to unnduurstand ccashfarg big words.Yes cracker, I fully understrand why it is sexist. It is based on this entire conversation you have had that led me to assume you would have claimed it to NOT be sexism, what with it having nothing to do with privilege and all. Do you need discrimination defined for you again? The only thing we see is that you think that we are talking strictly about privilege and discrimination. The rest of us are talking about racism and/or sexism. Not synonyms. Why can you not see that YOU are the only person here that uses only the words discriminate and privilege instead of racism and sexism when talking about racism and sexism?

Really? Maybe..in the same post? I'm done with this convo.

But as I explained it has everything to do with privilege, just like all the rest of your examples. That's what's so hilarious about this, you guys keep trying to bring up these "no-privilege" scenarios that are just crammed full of people having privilege over each other on a lot of different axes.You really have no idea what "privilege" means, do you? Well, yes. I know that you are because I'm reading your posts, and you keep asking me who's the racist in situations where one person is discriminating against another on the basis of racial privilege, or the sexist in a situation where one person is discriminating against another on the basis of gender privilege (I know I shouldn't conflate sex and gender, don't sue me, "sex privilege" is an ambiguous phrase.) And so on. That's what's so hilarious about this conversation - you think you guys have finally found the situation where it's racism without privilege, and you lay it out and it's all about privilege. Hilarious. Well, because I'm not. I gave you the definitions from sociologists and critical race theorists. You know, experts on discrimination, racism, and privilege.

Where did I say that being white grants universal privilege in all situations? Be specific. Those were the words you attributed to me; that was the assertion you've asserted that I made. Where did I make it? Be specific.

Where did I attribute those exact words to you? I did not. What I actually did is say that that is the impression you've given since you have made it quite clear that there is no such thing as racism towards white people. Every example of blatant racism towards a white person we've given you, you have said "nope, not racism". Based on your "privilege" whatever, that would imply that whites have complete privilege no matter what because one cannot be racist towards a white person.

Then why say "Yeah, I think it's racist when they call black people the N-word." when I never used an example of a white person calling a black person a nigger? Are you trying to set up a strawman?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Twice; first, in Message 402 and then again in Message 410, when having been asked where I make that remark, you replied: Except that I hadn't, in that post or in any other. Now, you're walking back the claim that those words reflect a position I hold. Well, fine. You may consider your apology accepted.

Since, apparently, I haven't repeated it enough, I again restate it here:Racism is discrimination that happens on the basis of privilege that accrues on the basis of race.This has been another installment of "stating the same thing for the 9th time, hoping that people will stop saying I've never stated it."

So you can, actually, identify racism on its face? We have wasted ~200 posts in this thread to have gotten nowhere, to agree? You recognize that there are things that are racist and sexist and just that? You say earlier that I have been perfectly clear, yet this is how you characterize what I have been arguing? You've no idea what I have been saying.

Where did I say "this is exactly and precisely what crashfrog said, verbaitm. What follows are the exact words crashfrog said" followed by the words you claim I claim you said exactly?

Where does that quoted material come from? You quote those as my words, but I didn't write them. Where did I say that you said

quote:

---

this is exactly and precisely what crashfrog said, verbaitm. What follows are the exact words crashfrog said

---

If you're asking where you attributed to me the statements that I said you had attributed to me, I've already told you, it was in Message 410, where you replied to my asking you where I had made the statements you attributed to me by telling me I'd made them in the same post where I'd asked. (Which actually makes no sense; if I was asking you where I had made statements you had attributed to me, if I'd made them in the post where I'd asked that, I wouldn't have yet made them at the time you had attributed them to me.)

Yes. It's easy to identify, because I just checked whether Oni was making statements that were discriminatory on the basis of privilege accruing according to sex and race. Since I know he's a man, I know that he has privilege that accrues according to gender. His race I'm not sure about, but I'm pretty sure he's not black, so I suspect he has privilege accruing according to race over a black person, at least.Not only can I identify racism on its face, I'm the only one here who can seem to correctly do so, because unlike you, I'm using a working model of racism - the one that identifies it as discrimination that happens on the basis of privilege that accrues according to race. I didn't say that you had done it, I said that you would do it if I allowed you to. And yes, you'd seize on any ambiguity in my speech to misrepresent my position. How do I know you would? Because you did so in Message 402.