Summations Only

It's the modern day US.

Where in the US?

Here is an idea: for once you could try responding to what it is your quoting. In this case, the proper response from you would be: "you're right, I did not respond to those 5 scenarios from you or Oni". What did you do? You shifted the fucking goalposts. No it's not, as I just laid out. You did not respond to the minority on minority racism examples me or Oni laid out. YOU are the liar here. Oh, how cute. Your one example is one that requires an alternate universe where, according to you, blacks would have privilege. Could you provide an example in modern day America where YOU believe blacks have privilege over whites?Better yet, respond to those 5 examples laid out by myself and Oni in the messages I referenced.

But that's a lie - I did respond. It doesn't require an "alternate universe." It just requires that black people have a racial privilege advantage over white people that they use to discriminate against them.That would be anti-white racism. No alternate universe required. I've addressed your examples at length, only to face your false accusation that I never have. How about you address even one of mine, for instance? Start with the NAACP scholarships and why they aren't racist. Explain to me how that works under your model.

New York City.AbE - Given the pedantic clarity being requested I should also point out that by 'Indian' I mean a guy of Indian descent rather than native American.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You did not respond to the scenarios. I did not say you did not respond to the messages themselves. Then feel free to provide an example in modern day America. Still waiting. Not the 5 I just referenced. You could show me exactly where you did and what your response to the minority on minority racism is. I did address that. I said "both racist" in Message 480. Why do I have to prove why something isn't racist if I think it is racist?Tell you what: you need to explain to creationists why god exists. Sound fair?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I dunno. I don't know anything about racial privilege in New York City, I guess. No, I got that. And what do you mean by "pedantic clarity"? Don't you think there's going to be a difference in the level of privilege afforded an Indian of Bihari descent in New Delhi, vs in New York where all they know is "dot versus feather"? Again, you're crafting examples specifically for the purpose of confounding any analysis of privilege. But we're talking about competing models for recognizing real racism, detecting actual instances of it in the real world, not gaming hypotheticals to favor one model over another. What would be the point of that? Suppose you guys do have the better model for detecting hypothetical racism in alternate universes where black-on-the-right-side discriminates against white-on-the-right-side.What on Earth would be the usefulness of that if it can't tell you why a scholarship only given to whites is racist, but a scholarship only given to blacks is not? That's actually something that happens. Here, on Planet Earth.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

It's not that your position isn't clear. It's that unless you state how you're defining privilege each and every time you use it, you're going to be misunderstood. Again and again. Plus your definition really doesn't work because, as others have pointed out, you need to create different classes of privilege.If you're not careful with vocabulary you risk spending most of your time wrapped in a maze of misunderstandings instead of discussing the topic. But hey, what are the odds of that happening? --Percy

Message 352: No response at all Message 328: response to message, but not to scenario given ("The same as if a mexican goes into a group of chinese guys and makes slanty eyes and says "ching chong chang"). Your response to that was:

quote:

---

Wow, amazing. "N*gger", "slanty eyes", but you think I'm the racist. Amazing.

---

Message 315: Response to messaage, but not scenario ("You will notice that my "model" is one that the nigger that calls Jackie Chan a slant eye gook is just as racist as the wetback that calls him a nigger"). You did not even comment on it.Those are my 3. Now for the 2 of Oni's I mentioned: Message 358: you did not even respond Message 378: "Which makes it possible for a black person to be racist toward a hispanic or an asian." you did not respond to this comment.Feel free to keep lying, crash.

But there are different classes of privilege. There is privilege that accrues on the basis of race, privilege that accrues on the basis of sex, and so on. I mean I've been saying that since Message 283. That's how you can have a situation where Martin Luther King, Jr. can be discriminated on the basis of his race, but he can also be the sexist who said that the woman's role in the Civil Rights Movement was for "coffee and blow jobs." Different classes of privilege. Is this your admission that I am, in fact, being unintentionally misrepresented by my opponents, here?

I wasn't really a participant in this thread, so I'll use my summation message to reply to this: No. I think that you've fallen so in love with your own prose that you can't see that it's the primary cause of all the problems you blame on others.--Percy

I don't have any desire to use the summation to settle scores, so for my summation I'll just repeat the original lay-out of my arguments I made back in Message 373:

quote:

---

1) "Elevator Gate" was a far bigger deal to Watson's detractors, who have largely criticized her for things she didn't actually say, than it was to Watson. The controversy surrounding "Elevator Gate" should be properly understood as an issue where movement atheism had an incredibly sexist response to an incredibly mild criticism of a culture that largely pays little heed to the contributions and safety of women at atheist conferences - not as a woman being "perpetually offended" at the mere idea that she might be found sexually attractive.

​

2) The worst excesses supposedly attributed to feminism - "all sex is rape", etc - are largely either the invention of detractors or legitimate discourse taken completely out of context.

​

3) Privilege is crucial to understanding forms of bigotry such as racism, sexism, classism, and other "isms"; where one does not have privilege over another, one cannot discriminate against another. That's how we're able to correctly recognize "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a fundamentally racist text and "Stuff White People Like" as fundamentally not racist in any way, the "n-word" as fundamentally racist when white people use it but not when black people do, the word "cracker" as an epithet against white people as not racist in any way, etc. Those that insist that privilege is not central to discrimination and therefore racism are obligated to explain under their model why it's not racist to refer to a white person as a "cracker" or to invoke white stereotypes like "can't dance", "love cheese", etc.

---

I dunno, I thought all of that was pretty interesting. I wish we could have had a conversation about it.

My one and only reason for entering this discussion was to point out to crash that he happened to use the word racism in a manner that is contrary to popular usage. I believe that this has been proven by the fact that every other participant agrees that crash's usage, while perhaps technically correct if you grant that it is listed among some sociology or feminist circles as a definition, is not at all common. So uncommon, in fact, to be not at all accurate and it's usage leads to arguments about the meaning of the word. The discussion, as it was when I entered/made it, was never meant to be about opposing methods.I am under the impression that one side of this discussion was arguing about which usage was more accurate or definition was actually correct, while the other had no interest in arguing the accuracy of the usage or correctness of definition, but instead was arguing about actual common usage. Two different arguments were being made that seemed to be about the same thing, but were different enough to have no chance at coming to an agreement or even bringing this debate to a close.This topic had the possibility of being very interesting and high quality, but we got stuck on how people use words and spent 300+ posts talking about that instead of the actual topic.Racism is racism is racism. Period. No discrimination necessary. No privilege necessary. No offense necessary. It doesn't matter what color your skin is; you can be racist. This is how people use the word racism/racist. This isn't merely "my say so", this is just how people use the word.Sexism is sexism is sexism. Period. No discrimination necessary. No privilege necessary. No offense necessary. It doesn't matter what gender you are, what your sexual preference is; you can be sexist. This isn't merely "my say so", this is just how people use the word.

Scenario 1: An Indian guy calls an oriental guy a slanty-eyed cunt and overtly refuses to give him a job on the basis of the colour of his skin.Scenario 2: An oriental guy calls an Indian guy a smelly-Paki and overtly refuses to serve him in a restaurant due to his skin colour.Every participant in this thread, other than Crash, can identify these acts as obviously racist. Our accepted and evidence based method of identifying whether or not racial discrimination has taken place (i.e. the application of discrimination laws) would indisputably class these as acts of racial discrimination (in both the US and throughout the EU)Yet Crash's privilege "model" results in the following response when asked if the above scenarios constitute acts of racial discrimination: Scenario 3: A man-hating-boss is mistreating male subordinates because of her anti-male prejudice. Giving them the worst shifts, verbally abusing them, publicly demeaning them, making offensive comments about their appearance and sexuality.Crash's response when asked whether this constitutes sexual discrimination: Yet - again - The law and anybody with a sensible view of discrimination can recognise this as sexual discrimination and sexism.So on one hand we have Crash and his rather esoteric and obscure academic definition of discrimination. And on the other hand we have the real life application of discrimination laws.Unsurprisingly Crash has failed to convince anyone here that obvious, and indeed legally defined, acts of discrimination should be re-classified because some ideologically driven sociologists want to define things differently.

The fact that my question, "Is 'sexual objectification' misogynistic, yes or no?" remains unanswered, is sufficient an answer for me.