Summations Only

Rahvin definition, and I guess mine, and Hooah's, and Stragglers too. Oh and Mod's...and dictionary.com. But that's it.OUR definition of racism is that privilage, while a factor, is not the only factor. Rahvin gave you an example of a black person calling a white person a "cracker" --- that would be racist by our definition.The point being there is an actaul statement to judge: "Hey white guy, you're a cracker." You can judge it and say it's not racist (by your definition) and we can judge it and say it is racist (by our definition). Again, point being, there is something tangible to judge.So then, as your example, you brought up SWPL as a book that would qualify as racist under those terms I just gave? Why? How? Where does it make any equally racist comment that Rahvin (myself and Hooah) would judge as racist but under YOUR definition is not racist?Just one example is all. Both models work just fine for that book.Now, if you'd have used for example of black comics making a silly white-guy voice being seen as funny, even by white people. But if a white guy did a silly black-guy voice it gives off a sense of being racist, you'd have a legit debate.Stuff White People Like was a shit poor example that you used simply because of the title.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Right, which is that racism is racism no matter the race of the perpetrator. Rahvin in particular has stated that principle several times, and referred to the alternative view as committing the fallacy of special pleading.Which is why I'm surprised to see you defend "Stuff White People Like" because the author is white. I mean, I agree - he's white and that's part of why it's not racist. But I don't see how you can advance that view simultaneously with a definition of racism where it's racism no matter the race of the perpetrator. Right, but under Rahvin's definition (and yours, I guess, to the extent that you've sided with Rahvin) a white person calling a white person a "cracker" is also racist, because if it's racist for a black person to do it, it's racist for anyone to do it because the race of the putative racist doesn't matter, and saying that it does is "special pleading." I think you're defending a third model at this point - one where SWPL may very well not be racist - but it clearly is under Rahvin's model. That's a good example, and again I think it's something my model explains much better than yours.

I can see why he has. You are technically doing so.Racism is racism no matter who the perpetrator is, what varies are the reactions and consequences, and those are based on the perpetrator.Black people steal is racist no matter who says it. We can judge that statement independent of the perpetrator.Now, how I personally react when someone says that depends on the perpetrator. But not because the statement stops being racist, but because there is common sense used to acknowledge that depending on the perpetrator the odds of someone being offended greatly reduces and you have the least amount of victims.That's why when Chris Rock did his "Niggers vs Black People" joke it wasn't offensive (for the most part) but, and even he says so, it is still really fucking racist. Well it would be racist as a statement, but it may not warrent the reaction of consequences that a black guy saying it to a white person might get. Well, again, give an example of something in SWPL that will be racist under Rahvin's definition but not racist under yours. Give an example that we could actually test.My model seems to be the same as his so it will serve as an example for me too. Ok, go ahead an explain it.My model would say that both are racist, period. No special pleading to privilage or any other thing.- Oni

No, I'm not committing the fallacy of special pleading technically, or in any other way. See Message 360. Since he abandoned the claim at that point, my rebuttal stands. This is self-contradictory and doesn't make any sense, so I can't really evaluate it. The existence. Racism is discrimination on the basis of privilege that accrues on the basis of race.

Sure you are, See: All of your Posts I don't get what's self-contradicting about it? I gave you the example of Chris Rock's joke, that is racist, even according to the comic saying it, and yet doesn't get the reaction of being offensive (for the most part) and there were no consequences for him doing the joke.I guess I'll form it in a question, do you feel his joke is racist or not? Are you even trying anymore? Why do all that bitching and complaining about being misrepresented to give vague answers? Don't answer anymore if you're not going to communicate what you're position is so that we may all understand it -- you know, since everyone is so stupid and can't comprehend it.I don't know what "the existence" is an example of. I asked for an example of something in the book that Rahvin would find racist yet your model shows it is not. It was your arguement. I'm helping you out you cheese eating mofuga. Can that be any more circular?Saying that someone is more privilaged than someone else on the basis of race IS RACIST. Your definition makes no sense.- Oni

Well this is exactly why I previously said that you had: "effectively defined sexism as something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men".Do you agree with this or do you consider my conclusion to be some sort of misrepresentation?No matter how rare it may or may not be be in practise you seem to have defined your way into a situation where a person behaving in a way that would very definitely legally qualify as sexual discrimination (and which all of the people you are arguing with here would recognise and classify as sexist) fails to qualify as sexual discrimination simply because the perpetrator happens to be a woman.And it is this sort of broad brush appraoch to applying 'privelige' that is the catalyst for the strong reaction you have received here. It's because your position is seen as leading to obvious absurdities such as a man-hating-boss mistreating male subordinates because of her anti-male prejudice not qualifying as sexual discrimination or sexism when by any sane definition it must (regardless of how rare such a situation may or may not be).

Do you realize that you have effectively made up your own definition of racism? This thread is at the top of google search results when searching for this sentence. When everyone else uses a word and everyone else agrees on how that word will be used, how do you figure that yours is the correct one and the one that should be used even though the rest of us have come to the same conclusion and use the word the same way without even needing to discuss it? The adult thing to do would be "I guess I don't have a full understanding of racism" or "I guess racism has other meanings and is a much wider subject".That's all I intended to do here. Tell you that the way you are using the words sexism and racism run contrary to the way everyone else that uses those words.Racism actually occurs. In real life. Real people really do experience racism. And guess what? The racism that real people experience is not limited to the basis of privilege or discrimination. Your obscure sociology definition is not the end all be all of racism definitions. It is a sub category or type of racism. Racism can even occur where no one is offended! Who'da thunk it?Racism does not literally mean discrimination. There can be racism with no discrimination.Racism does not have to only be done unto the "underprivileged". Racism can occur where no privilege is involved. We've given you examples that you've shoehorned privilege into.Racism does not have to be offensive to be considered racism.

I would definitely consider that a misrepresentation, because there's nothing in my definition of "sexism" that says it has to be a situation of men doing something to women. There's nothing inherent in privilege where it accrues more to men than to women; it just does. Rectifying this situation is the primary goal of feminism.Now, I'm happy to agree that my position could be stated as though I've effectively defined sexism as something we're most likely to observe as something men do to women. But that's a lot different than what you're saying. You're saying I don't believe it's possible that a woman could be sexist against a man. Obviously that's not what I believe because I've given you examples where I believe that could be possible.

Do you realize that I've not, because I've quoted liberally from sociologists and critical race theorists throughout?In fact, unlike you that's exactly what I did as soon as this topic started: I brushed up on critical race theory and sociology of racism to make sure I knew what I was talking about.What did you do, Hooah? Did you consult anything besides an internet dictionary when this started to see if my arguments had merit? Or did you just "know" I was wrong? And yet I'm the only one giving examples that prove that you're using it in a way that runs contrary to everyone else. And yet all of your examples are things you've made up - hypotheticals. I'm the only one working with examples of things from real life.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

No, crash, I actually interact with real human beings. I see racism actually happen. In real life. I use the word racism with people and they actually happen to not have this weird definition that you do. Oddly enough (actually no that odd) you are the first person I have ever encountered that used the word racism in the manner that you do. My son understands that racism is judging someone based on their race. He knows it's wrong no matter who does it.He's 8. What's your excuse?Do you not find it odd that everyone in this thread no only disagrees with you, but is using the words sexism and racism in the same exact fashion? Critical race theory and sociology of racism obviously did not tell you how to identify actual racism. You might want to get your nose out of the books and interact with people. See racism in action. Or you could look up the definition the rest of us are using. You know, the most common definition. Instead, you have to hunt and peck and scour to find yours. No, you haven't On the contrary. The examples I have given are things that have actually happened. Things I have seen with my own 2 eyes and heard with my own 2 ears.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

No. I'm not saying you have eliminated some sort of Star trek alternate universe as a theoretical possibility. I'm saying that because you've told me that that in the real world men are the priveiged gender combined with your insistence that sexism can only be exhibited by the privilieged gender, that in any real-world practical sense you have "effectively defined sexism as something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men". But the a man-hating-boss mistreating male subordinates because of her anti-male prejudice doesn't qualify as sexual discrimination or sexism by the terms of your argument does it?And that is why everybody else here thinks your position is just obviously silly. Because legally it would qualify as sexual discrimination and any person with a sensible approach to these matters would agree with this legal conclusion (regardless of how rare such a situation may or may not be).

No, I don't find it odd - same way I don't find it odd that my entirely reasonable views on women not being raped caused someone to disagree so strongly that they hacked EvC. Same way that I don't find it odd that my entirely reasonable recount of EvC history caused AZPaul to crawl out of the woodwork and insult me over and over again. Same way I don't find it odd that my entirely reasonable comment that the historical Jesus Christ wasn't named Jesus Christ caused PaulK to say I was worse than Buzsaw.What on Earth would I find odd about the fact that for no reason at all, people see that little frog in his little car and just completely lose their shit? Why would I believe you?

Well, this is a misrepresentation. I gave a real-world example as well. I disagree, and I've told you how I effectively define sexism.Now, look, you can either continue to put forth another, different position as though it were mine, or you can accept that you've been corrected repeatedly in terms of how I effectively define sexism. If you're going to go the first way, though, please have the decency to admit it so I can finally confirm to the moderators that people are doing this. Ok, but if she doesn't have sex privilege over the men, how can she sexually discriminate against them? Don't get me wrong - she could certainly discriminate, she's very much in a position to do so. But without sex privilege over someone, how could she discriminate against them on the basis of sex?

Thoughts are required for prejudice. Isms are ultimately about prejudice. Dude I've made it abundantly clear that I remain entirely unconvinced that elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts" or being sexist rather than being a bit of a dick. Summed up by Message 372So don't start misrepresenting me now will ya....

Because everyone really is out to get you. I really would lie about witnessing racism in order to win a fake internet argument. The stakes are that high.