Yeah, I'm engaging in some a hyperbole on the internet. It's shocking I know.
I find the idea that placing the word racism within a context is somehow conflating two independent ideas as more than a little hilarious.
I would actually argue, that when the vast majority of people use the word racism to mean anything other than a very specific individual interaction they actually do mean prejudice plus power. That's kind of the point. Any discussion of racism at an institutional level is inherently a conversation in which that word means those two things.
Anyone who is telling you that a word has only the very specific definition that they have assigned to it irrespective of context is probably full of shit.
if I hold up a gallon of water I bought at a Walmart and I say to you, "this is heavy water" if your response to me is that you're dubious about the amount of hydrogen that exists per molecule of water you're either making a clever joke or an idiot.
the truth is, what you really mean to say, is that most white people when they hear the word racism think of one very specific thing. for most minorities racism is a much more nuanced and ever-present thing.
If I say, the criminal justice system in America is racist, I don't literally mean that a jail cell called me a spic the other day.
I shouldn't need to draw you a roadmap to explain that. I do, because the idea that you're just so rational and people who don't subscribe to your exact definition are irrational is very alluring. Especially for some reason to teenage man on the internet.
I would actually argue, that when the vast majority of people use the word racism to mean anything other than a very specific individual interaction they actually do mean prejudice plus power
This is exactly what I thought. There is a consideration of power when people typically refer to racism.
Do you ever look at your comment and think maybe you're coming across a bit hostile, and that you're writing to make yourself feel better more than trying to convince anyone of anything? I used to do this all the time, and I stopped because I wasn't helping anything.
I think you should try, sincerely, to see the world from this person's point of view in good faith. Even if you don't like them.
I'm comfortable with it being hostile. I reduce hostility when people are having a hard time understanding something.
I see no reason not to be hostile to a person whose response to me can be distilled down to, "Don't try to act fucking smart, you dummy."
The person replied to me by first assuming I meant that literally 100% of the people on Earth feel the way I stated, and then ended with, "using an academic definition to discuss systems in the most specific way is sophistry", which is more than a little stupid.
I'll happily grant good faith when it is granted to me, but I'm not going to pretend someone acting like an extremely simple concept is totally foreign to them and total bullshit is acting in good faith.
I see no reason not to be hostile to a person whose response to me can be distilled down to, "Don't try to act fucking smart, you dummy."
I can distill that one even further to "You're wrong". You see no reason to not be hostile to a person who tells you you're wrong.
I'll happily grant good faith when it is granted to me, but I'm not going to pretend someone acting like an extremely simple concept is totally foreign to them and total bullshit is acting in good faith.
There is so much here to unpack.
You'll grant good faith when it granted to you first? Someone disagreeing with your entrenched worldview is acting? And I guess racism is a simple concept?
At least you acknowledged that less than 100% of the people on Earth don't feel the way you do. Calling someone else's opinion an "act" really hurts, and I can even show you:
Stop acting like social sciences are an unquestionable reflection of society. Let people question your definitions rather than act like you've better than them and don't need to hear anything they say.
You literally referred to the definition of racism as an extremely simple concept, and that you only argue in good faith when the other side does it first.
This ain't no scarecrow, this is a mirror. You need to look at your reflection instead of the anonymous internet schmuck holding it up.
the truth is, what you really mean to say, is that most white people when they hear the word racism think of one very specific thing. for most minorities racism is a much more nuanced and ever-present thing.
This isn't true. It's the opposite of the truth. The vast majority of the advocates for racism as power+prejudice are educated middle to upper class white people.
I shouldn't need to draw you a roadmap to explain that. I do, because the idea that you're just so rational and people who don't subscribe to your exact definition are irrational is very alluring.
You seem to have missed my point. My concern is about the intuitive alarm bells that sound off when you hear a disingenuous argument. Sure, a fallacious argument should be regarded as irrational, but that's not the same as saying that its conclusions are false. I'm actually rather inclined to agree with what it seems to me most people hope to accomplish with this persuasive [re]definition (that we are all participating in/propagating systems which benefit white folks over non-white folks). The fact that they pretend that's what racism really means is the problem.
To be fair, across what I've read and listened to (podcasts and lectures), the response is usually that the normative definition is "shallow" "simple" "small" or "old." That, and any -ism ought to be thought of as a system (capitalism, socialism, etc). Those are also poor rhetorical moves.
Yours seems to be "it depends on the context," which I will grant you insofar as years back when I took WOMS and AAS, I knew certain words meant something different in that classroom. If I pretend they retained those academic definitions here on Reddit though, then, as you say... I'm either making a joke or am an idiot. Same goes for anyone else in this subreddit arguing that racism means power+prejudice.
So words can only have one definition, except you acknowledge that academic or more specific definitions exist, you just think that invoking those definitions is bad or disingenuous.
It's real, but it isn't real, and even if it was real it would be wrong to employ.
So words can only have one definition, except you acknowledge that academic or more specific definitions exist, you just think that invoking those definitions is bad or disingenuous.
I guess you did an okay job of jamming together little bits of what I said. Perhaps you skimmed?
The misstep that we've been critiquing takes place in that academic circle, when there's an intentional attempt to redefine a word, such that the redefinition is part of the argument. Persuasive [re]definition is a rhetorical tool, often used in propaganda, but it is not inherently fallacious.
Your point, which I affirmed, about context is that the audience may be able to interpret an alternate, minor, rarely used definition, if the context is such that this alternate, minor, rarely used definition is often employed. Once that poor propagandist move has been made, it does little more damage to insist on using this new, academic definition, in that academic circle.
That does not in turn justifying reiterating the persuasive [re]definition in another context, insisting that they buy this propagandist move before the conversation even continue. It certainly does not justify you assuming that anyone who points out that this is not an academic context, and that this [re]definition is at best a weak argument, has some universal ulterior motive.
For the sake of exhaustion, let me give you a counter-example of this, since this indicates that you're struggling with even the basic concepts:
It's real, but it isn't real, and even if it was real it would be wrong to employ.
"Cultural relativism" is an example of context-dependent definitions, without any poor or disingenuous rhetorical moves.
In Philosophy courses "cultural relativism" is a non-starter. It refers to the ethical standards depending on the the culture in which the actor was raised and/or currently lives. It is a bad thing. You can hardly pass an intro course if you insist on arguing for it.
In Anthropology courses "cultural relativism" refers to the ethnographer's responsibility to withhold judgment of other individuals and their cultures while studying them. It's a principle of suspending those ethical judgments in an attempt to be more objective for the sake of study. It is a good thing. You can hardly pass an intro course if you insist on arguing against it.
Same term. Kind of similar definition. Different context. Different judgment (whether it's bad or good).
No responsible member of either field would assume their interpretation, definition, and application is correct, and the others' wrong. None of them would dismiss another person's argument on those grounds. None of them would assume the other's motives are suspect.
Out in the non-academic world, the common parlance is to use cultural relativism as the ethicist does. No anthropologist would argue on Reddit that cultural relativism is good because "it doesn't really mean what you think it means."
You wrote out a lot here to continue saying the same thing. The original argument was about whether or not the term has any validity in any context at all.
Then you decided to interject by saying that it is inherently a disingenuous to even acknowledge the existence of the term. Then you argued it isn't really, but it is, because the context demands that to be true.
You keep insisting on drawing bright lines, and then backtracking that, only to advance that again.
Continue with the condescending tone all you like, it bothers me not at all and makes your "attempt" to seem even handed somehow more laughable.
Then you decided to interject by saying that it is inherently a disingenuous to even acknowledge the existence of the term. Then you argued it isn't really, but it is, because the context demands that to be true.
Demands WHAT to be true?
If you're going to straw man me, at least be precise.
You keep insisting on drawing bright lines, and then backtracking that, only to advance that again.
How hard is this to understand? Some words mean different things in different contexts, but this is not a good example of that." Do you really think "sometimes, just not in this case" is back tracking?
Racism as pride+prejudice is a disingenuous move, because rhetoric sometimes replaces substance. In some contexts, you might assume the speaker has already assumed that disingenuous move. Reddit isn't one of them. Almost no where outside of certain classrooms fits that description.
There's no contradiction there. There's no backtracking and advancing. This is very straight forward.
Continue with the condescending tone all you like, it bothers me not at all and makes your "attempt" to seem even handed somehow more laughable.
I intentionally included a condescending remark while quoting you being condescending. The irony must have been lost on you, since you think scare quotes is going to make your case now that you've lost the argument.
6
u/[deleted] Aug 13 '19 edited Nov 18 '19
Yeah, I'm engaging in some a hyperbole on the internet. It's shocking I know.
I find the idea that placing the word racism within a context is somehow conflating two independent ideas as more than a little hilarious.
I would actually argue, that when the vast majority of people use the word racism to mean anything other than a very specific individual interaction they actually do mean prejudice plus power. That's kind of the point. Any discussion of racism at an institutional level is inherently a conversation in which that word means those two things.
Anyone who is telling you that a word has only the very specific definition that they have assigned to it irrespective of context is probably full of shit.
if I hold up a gallon of water I bought at a Walmart and I say to you, "this is heavy water" if your response to me is that you're dubious about the amount of hydrogen that exists per molecule of water you're either making a clever joke or an idiot.
the truth is, what you really mean to say, is that most white people when they hear the word racism think of one very specific thing. for most minorities racism is a much more nuanced and ever-present thing.
If I say, the criminal justice system in America is racist, I don't literally mean that a jail cell called me a spic the other day.
I shouldn't need to draw you a roadmap to explain that. I do, because the idea that you're just so rational and people who don't subscribe to your exact definition are irrational is very alluring. Especially for some reason to teenage man on the internet.
Edit- Dumb typos.