Racism is discrimination that happens on the basis of privilege that accrues on the basis of race.
And my position (and I believe Oni's and Rahvins) is that there are other scenarios where racism occurs that have nothing to do with discrimination or privilege.
1) A person that votes for the president and uses the color of the presidents skin as a factor would be considered racist. That would be an act of racism.
2) A person that decides who they allow in their establishment based on the color of their skin is a racist. That is a racist act.
3) A person who makes a judgement based on the color of another persons skin is a racist. That is a racist act.
See that? Some of those contain discrimination (number 2) but are not based on discrimination, nor are they necessarily discrimination. But none if them are exact examples of precisely and only discrimination or privilege because we cannot identify the privileged party, but we can identify that it is racist.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
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.
Aannnd we've just taken 100 steps back. This is going nowhere.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
And my position (and I believe Oni's and Rahvins) is that there are other scenarios where racism occurs that have nothing to do with discrimination or privilege.
I'm aware of your position, you've been quite clear in explaining it and that's to your credit. Congratulations on clearly explaining your views.
Your views are wrong. Your three examples are all situations where racism is contingent on the distribution of privilege.
A person that votes for the president and uses the color of the presidents skin as a factor would be considered racist. That would be an act of racism.
Incorrect. A white person who won't vote for the black candidate because he's black is committing an act of racism. The black person who votes for the black candidate because he's black is not. Same act, but racist in one case and not in the other, because of the privilege that accrues to the white person - always having someone of his race to vote for in major elections, such as the presidency - is not afforded to the black person.
A person that decides who they allow in their establishment based on the color of their skin is a racist. That is a racist act.
Incorrect. A club that allowed membership only to whites would be racist. A club that allowed membership only to black people would not be. Again, privilege is the reason - specifically, the racial privilege that one's race has historically not been an obstacle to joining prominent, influential organizations, a privilege not historically afforded to blacks.
A person who makes a judgement based on the color of another persons skin is a racist.
Incorrect. A doctor who made the judgement that a black man could be an unwilling participant in an experiment to allow syphilis infections to run their course under observation, but wouldn't make the same judgement about a white man, would be a racist. A doctor who made a treatment judgement about a black man that he wouldn't for a white man on the basis of medical evidence that black people are better served by one treatment over another would not be. Again, the difference is racial privilege.
Thanks for restating your position so clearly, Hooah, and I really do hope it cuts down on the confusion the moderators are apparently experiencing. Unfortunately, your views have not become any less wrong than the first time you so clearly expressed them.
Well, yes. Because you refuse to actually argue for your position, you just keep asserting it over and over.
You've asserted it very clearly! I now believe I have a very clear idea of the position you're defending. Unfortunately, you're still wrong for exactly the same reasons I keep explaining.
But that's fine, I'm patient. I'm happy to keep explaining until you learn something.
A scholarship, awarded to African-Americans of scholastic merit, by the NAACP.
A scholarship, awarded on the basis of scholastic merit, but by policy only to white people.
Without using the concept of privilege, explain why the second is racist but the first is not. (No credit for answering "they're both racist", because it's trivially obvious that they are not.)
if you had a situation where more privilege accrued to being a woman than being a man, and in that situation a woman discriminated against a man, then that would be an act of sexism that was misandrist, not misogynistic.
If an act of sexism perpetrated by a woman towards a man is misandrist then an act of sexism perpetrated by a man towards a woman is misogynistic isn't it?
You have made it very clear that you consider the elevator incident in question to be an act of sexism perpetrated by elevator-guy.
Crash writes:
Who do you believe has tried to convince you that Elevator Guy had "misogynistic thoughts"? When you say that you remain "entirely unconvinced" that he did, in what is that reference to? You're responding, apparently, to a number of arguments that I can't find in this thread. Nobody's used "misogynist" to refer to the Elevator Guy except for Roxrkool, as I said.
If Rebecca Watson is applying the same definitions and thinking that you are here then I genuinely don't see how you or she can be classifying elevator guy's actions, and the thinking that lay behind these actions, as anything other than misogynistic.
I feel like I've been pretty clear about my position..
Then is it OK if I ask you to clarify a very specific point of confusion I am having with it?
Crash writes:
...if you had a situation where more privilege accrued to being a woman than being a man, and in that situation a woman discriminated against a man, then that would be an act of sexism that was misandrist, not misogynistic.
To qualify as sexist (according to your argument) does the privilege in question have to be gender privilege (rather than any other form of privilege)?
If so - Can you provide a real-life example where a a woman has gender privilege specifically over a man (rather than being in possession of other forms of privilege such as socio-economic-privilege)?
Because as I understand your argument a situation such as a female boss demeaning or mistreating a male employee because she considers men inferior to women wouldn't qualify as sexist because her privilege is professional-positional rather than sexual.
Hmm ... how about if it was a scholarship for Jews?
Would it be available to black Jews (or Jews of any other ancestry)? If so, that would obviously not be racist. If black, Hispanic Jews (etc) were prohibited, that would be racist.
If an act of sexism perpetrated by a woman towards a man is misandrist then an act of sexism perpetrated by a man towards a woman is misogynistic isn't it?
Probably, but I again don't see the relevance of thoughts.
If Rebecca Watson is applying the same definitions and thinking that you are here then I genuinely don't see how you or she can be classifying elevator guy's actions, and the thinking that lay behind these actions, as anything other than misogynistic.
Well, it sounds like you've convinced yourself that the elevator guy was being misogynistic, but again I don't see where anyone is asking you to characterize his thoughts, which we can't know. You're certainly not getting that from any of my posts, where I've been at great pains to be as clear as possible that you're not being asked by Watson or myself to accept that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts, merely sexist actions.
To qualify as sexist (according to your argument) does the privilege in question have to be gender privilege (rather than any other form of privilege)?
Broadly, yes. When the discrimination happens on the basis of racial privilege, that's called "racism." When it happens on the basis of class privilege, that's "classism." When it happens on the basis of able-bodied privilege, that's "ableism." Like I said, I think I've been pretty clear about that. Just looking at the root of the "-ism" word being used to refer to the discrimination should give you a clue as to the "flavor" of privilege that lies at the heart of it.
Can you provide a real-life example where a a woman has gender privilege specifically over a man (rather than being in possession of other forms of privilege such as socio-economic-privilege)?
Well, for instance, I think having access to better birth control options, while the notion of better birth control for men (indeed the very idea of a man being able to control his fertility) is considered risible, can be an area where, under the right circumstances, a woman might have gender privilege over a man.
Or, to move into the hypothetical realm, the society detailed in the Star Trek TNG episode "Angel One":
would be an example of a society where women broadly had gender privilege over men, and therefore sexism would primarily by instances of misandry.
Because as I understand your argument a situation such as a female boss demeaning or mistreating a male employee because she considers men inferior to women wouldn't qualify as sexist because her privilege is professional-positional rather than sexual.
I think that's probably fair. But again that seems like a situation you've constructed to confound a clear idea of the privilege differential, not something that actually happens. Typically discriminating against men on the basis of their sex isn't something women are ever in the privileged position to do. It's only in vanishingly rare circumstances where that's even possible.
Re: Objectification and rape - Significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences
That makes no sense. Privilege isn't something I'm making up, it'll be a function of very real cultural baggage that accrues to some people on the basis of their characteristics and not to others.
Sure it makes sense. Deciding whether one race or gender is privilaged over the other by some arbitrary line that you are drawing, is racist and sexist. It's the very definition of the two words.
Have you genuinely never heard the term "heteronormative"? You must know it as one of those you-think-it's-bullshit academic Feminist/Marxist Theory-type buzzwords, but what it refers to is the privilege that accrues from being heterosexual.
Yeah, and what does it mean? Is that a rule of some sort that everyone lives by? Frankly I've never heard it used.
And in any case, how does that apply in the scenario I gave where the gay woman makes an advance on the hetero woman?
Given that you believe hetero is the norm and the privilaged one, was the gay woman being sexist in my scenario?
Yes, when you say those things, the first is sexist and the second is racist.
Fine, I guess you say "when you say those things" because you know I'm neither a woman or black.
And, just to get it straight, you're opinion is that if a woman said: "women are stupid" and a black person said: "black people steal" it would not be sexist or racist on the basis of privilage -- or the lack thereof?
Well, gosh, for the tenth time: because it's a book that qualifies as "racist" under Rahvin's defintion, but isn't. What we're testing, here, is the accuracy of two competing models for the notion of "racism." I contend that mine is better because it's more accurate at distinguishing between that which is racist and that which is not. "Stuff White People Like" is an example of where my model is superior in that way.
™ Version 4.2
(1)