Summations Only

Hooah is simply using the title as his guide, which is how you tried to fool everyone into thinking it was some sort of racially driven book. But, since I have not only hung out with Myles Valentin - who also runs the website, and is fucking Filipino, I can assure you you are way the fuck off your mark. The entire thing was a jab at liberals and hipsters, nothing else. The whole point of the "white people" part was the joke. And, as usual, some idiot falls for it. Say cheese. Of what? A book. Yes, you are right, it is an example of a book. Your point about Rahvin seeing it as racist, or even Hoaah who is only judging by the title has been shut down.Do you have anything else to add? Probably the same old "I'm right and all of you are out to get me" position, which is your typical bullshit and one of the many reason I avoid any sensible debate with you.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

You still haven't given any present-day-real-world example of a woman being sexist. Nor will you be able to without completely contradicting yourself. This is because you have to-all-practical-intents-and-purposesd effectively defined sexism as something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men. You have effectively adopted the following stance:

quote:

---

Given the historical and continued imbalance of power, where men as a class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.

---

Feminism 101 Blog (one of the ones you told me to read I believe)Now you may not have realised that this was the logical consequence of your position. Apparently this was not your intended outcome.But it isn't a misrepresentation for me to say that you have "effectively defined sexism as something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men" just because you have failed to understand the consequences of your own arguments.But feel free to prove me wrong by providing a present-day-real-world example of a woman being sexist that meets all your definitions. If you say you are not concerned with whether or not "misogynic thoughts" were an aspect of the whole elevatorgate affair then I guess I believe you. But Rebecca Watson obviously is concerned with "misogynic thoughts" with regard to the incident and the reaction to it because it was she rather than me that raised the issue of "misogynic thought".

The one in the scenario I put forward. Well you could look up the discrimination laws in the US or UK and see if they conform to your definitions.Or you could ask a legal professional such as a member of the HR department at work.I did both and in both cases the woman in my example would clearly have been committing sexual discrimination. Did you just concede that your entire argument regarding privilege and discrimination doesn't apply to laws regarding discrimination?And you wonder why people are lining up to tell you just how wrong you so obviously are here!!!!!!!!

Yes. Of course it does.And Crash's position is reaching new levels of absurdity as he tries to take on board your real life example. So privilege is essential to any notion of discrimination but is out of scope when legally establishing what is and isn't discrimination.Mad.

Again, you are still wrong. Your argument is completely vacuous as it is based on a flawed definition of racism so there is nothing to refute but to point out that you are using the wrong definition (i.e. not the generally accepted definition of the word but some arcane variation of it) of the word.You have rebutted nothing in all your posts, you have merely shown that you are incredibly stubborn.I only downgraded two or so of your posts not all of them, it's not worth my time to jeer all your posts. Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.Edited by kjsimons, : typo

Well, but look. It shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that legal definitions aren't for arriving at understanding, they're for litigation. Remember a few months ago in a gun thread, Catholic Scientist made those excellent points about the absurdity of defining "assault rifles"?I'm not now nor have I ever been referring to the legal definition of racism. It would be hard to, since being a racist isn't defined in the law.

Kj, it's not necessary for you to repeat your opinion that I'm wrong. It's necessary for you to provide some kind of reason that might convince me that I am. Repeating false assertions that my definition is "flawed" (when in fact I've proven the reverse, with examples of things the other definitions call "racist" but aren't) isn't going to be enough, because I know you're wrong.You may wish to consider exactly what you're trying to accomplish here. I generally find myself convinced by arguments, not popular vote.

A reply to nobody, setting out my own views.On consideration, it seems to me that the notion of privilege (in the sense of privileged groups rather than individual privilege) is a decent rule of thumb to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable discrimination. In many cases the discrimination might no do more than counter-balance other discrimination, that may be going on quite unconsciously, which should make it pragmatically acceptable even if the motives behind it are less than pure.But I am worried about the idea that it defines racism in any more general sense. Racism includes ideas of racial superiority, race hate, and racial prejudice. I don't think that, for instance a neo-Nazi would be any less of a racist if he were living in Israel, where Jews are arguably privileged. It's easy to think of other examples. Would a Japanese man who considers the Japanese race to be superior to all others cease to be a racist if he moved from Japan where he is privileged to a nation where he is not ? The idea makes no sense to me. It seems to me that ideas of racial superiority, race hate and racial prejudice should be considered racist regardless of privilege.And the same should apply to any other -isms where prejudice and the like are involved, like sexism.Following on from this, if racism includes racial prejudice then I think that the term should also be used to included discrimination based on racial prejudice. Which is why I regard privilege as only useful as a rule of thumb to determine acceptability. A pragmatic guideline, not a truth.

You have spent this entire thread insisting that privilege is absolutely key to identifying discrimination.Yet you have now conceded that the our accepted and evidence based method of identifying whether or not discrimination has taken place (i.e. the application of discrimination laws) operate without any recourse to the notion of privilege at all (because it is "outside of scope") Yet we have these (apparently) paradoxical things called 'discrimination laws' that make no reference to privilege.(**BOOM**)That was the sound of your argument meeting reality and blowing up in your face upon impact.

Do I correctly understand you to be saying that discrimination laws make no reference to privilege because it really and truly isn't part of the definition? And that therefore Crash is wrong about discrimination being a function of privilege?If I've got that right (just ignore this post if I don't), then before you can make that claim don't you need to address Crash's claim that privilege is beyond the scope of the law, I assume because the law is required to apply neutrally with regard to wealth?I'm probably missing something in Crash's argument about discrimination requiring privilege. Black people discriminate against white people in all kinds of subtle ways, and it becomes a lot more overt if a white person decides to take a walk through a black ghetto. It seems to me that it is power or control that gives one the ability to discriminate, and that therefore no one is inherently on the giving or receiving end of discrimination. It depends upon where and when.--Percy

I haven't conceded anything at all about our method. You asked me about the law's method, and I replied that I don't know anything about the law because I'm not a lawyer. Answer the question that I asked, don't ignore it. What's surprising about the idea that the purpose of a legal definition is not to understand sociological phenomena, but to litigate? Was it? Sounded more like your argument falling on its face.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Right. "Power and control", aka privilege. Well, throughout I thought I'd been pretty clear that nobody is inherently on the giving or receiving end of privilege, as you put it, and that it does come down to circumstance - the circumstance of who has privilege.There's nothing inherently the case about being Caucasian (or able to pass for it) that causes one to accrue enormous racial privilege. That's the way it is right now, but many of us are well able to imagine a future where no privilege accrues on the basis of race at all. I would suggest that that's the goal of all social-justice minded people. As far as blacks being practically able to discriminate against whites, I think as far back as Message 290 I've been saying that, in circumstances where black people had racial privilege over white people, they would be able to racially discriminate against white people.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

If this thread's participants have by mutual agreement decided that privilege will be understood to mean power and control, or if in the arena of discussions about racism and discrimination there is that specialized terminology, then fine.But otherwise, no.--Percy

No one seems to be confused by my use of the word "privilege", I guess. If I've been using that term and people haven't been understanding what I mean, this is the first I'm hearing of it, and it kind of begs the question of why the replies to Message 283 were "no, that's not right, you're wrong and the reason is you're obviously wrong because I said so" and not "hrm, not sure what you mean by 'privilege', can you explain?"

Percy writes that, " It seems to me that it is power or control that gives one the ability to discriminate..."This is very different from "privilege" as applied to an entire race. That's just nonsense, as anyone other than our current Sociology professors would realize."Privilege" is getting too close to "original sin" aka "the sins of the fathers." That goes back to, "Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation. More nonsense.Ayn Rand demolished this whole "original sin" nonsense, and I think the "privilege" argument at the same time:

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledgehe acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evilhe became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his laborhe became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desirehe acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joyall the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he wasthat robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without lovehe was not man.

​

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

Apply the meaning of that passage to the nonsense being heaped on the white race by those same Sociology professors and their ilk, and the parallels are not hard to find.The whole argument behind the "privilege" accusation depends upon the victims of that accusation accepting a collective guilt ("sins of the father," remember?).I choose not to accept that guilt, nor "original sin" in any form. Further, I consider both concepts inherently evil.