How do you define racism?

[baron]

My point was also that it's the definition largely in use, but made no claim about how large of a majority are using it, neither would I dare try to guess.

And yet you did.

A small minority wants to make it mean something different...

What's left from the whole when you subtract a small minority? That's right, the vast majority.

That's before the matter of how you know that the 'majority' are using the definition in question is even taken into account.

 

[Belz...]

And yet you did.

What's left from the whole when you subtract a small minority? That's right, the vast majority.

That's before the matter of how you know that the 'majority' are using the definition in question is even taken into account.

Ah, I see where you confusion lies.

You think that the small minority who wants to push an extreme definition mentioned in the OP is the complement of the majority who uses the dictionary definition. That, I'm afraid, is a non-sequitur. You see, the two parts of that post of mine are not complementary. Not every one who doesn't use the dictionary definition or the commonly-used one is an SJW who wants to call every white person a racist.

Seriously, it would have been easier to explain your understanding right off the bat, or better yet, re-read it for comprehension.

 

[baron]

Ah, I see where you confusion lies.

You think that the small minority who wants to push an extreme definition mentioned in the OP is the complement of the majority who uses the dictionary definition. That, I'm afraid, is a non-sequitur. You see, the two parts of that post of mine are not complementary. Not every one who doesn't use the dictionary definition or the commonly-used one is an SJW who wants to call every white person a racist.

I am not confused in the slightest.

First, you said

It's the one in use. A small minority wants to make it mean something different...

This has nothing to do with SJWs "call[ing] every white person a racist"! Talk about an obvious straw man, wow!

So you state that

1) One single definition for the word is 'in use', yet
2) A small minority wants to make the word mean something different.

Now if that doesn't mean that the vast majority use the 'in use' definition then there must be a THIRD set of people who do NOT use the 'in use' definition for the word yet do NOT think that other people should use the word in the same way.

What kind of person would even think that? "Hey, I take X to mean Y, but wouldn't want X to actually mean Y!"

Your argument has moved from clear denial of the obvious through absurdity and into the realms of comedy. Stop now, please, before you go full circle and implode.

 

[Belz...]

I am not confused in the slightest.

I just explained to you where you went wrong in interpreting what I said.

Talk about an obvious straw man, wow!

Are you now accusing me of not understanding my own argument?

This has nothing to do with SJWs "call[ing] every white person a racist"!

1) One single definition for the word is 'in use', yet
2) A small minority wants to make the word mean something different.

I'm refering to SJWs when I talk about that small minority.

Now if that doesn't mean that the vast majority use the 'in use' definition then there must be a THIRD set of people who do NOT use the 'in use' definition for the word yet do NOT think that other people should use the word in the same way.

And you're confused again. I said, once more:

A small minority wants to make it mean something different...

That's different from simply "using" the definition. They want to foist their own upon everybody else. The "third group" we're both refering to are simply people who use variations on the definition but have no intention of making that definition "official", to use your term. Your error was in thinking that the second group was the complement of the first when, as you have now been informed but refuse to accept, it was not intended to mean that.


NOTE: It'd be really nice if you could use the quote function to properly link the post you're quoting.

 

[baron]

Are you now accusing me of not understanding my own argument?

More of making an argument then trying to shoe-horn it into a more acceptable version when it's pointed out to you that it's nonsensical.

I'm refering to SJWs when I talk about that small minority.

Of course, that should have been obvious from the fact you never mentioned SJWs once in the entire thread.

That's different from simply "using" the definition. They want to foist their own upon everybody else. The "third group" we're both refering to are simply people who use variations on the definition but have no intention of making that definition "official", to use your term.

Exactly what I said. Who are these people who use a word in a certain way yet do not want others to use the word in this way? What is their motivation? According to you they form a significant minority of the population yet I have never met one.

NOTE: It'd be really nice if you could use the quote function to properly link the post you're quoting.

It would be nicer for you to admit you are wrong.

 

[Belz...]

More of making an argument then trying to shoe-horn it into a more acceptable version when it's pointed out to you that it's nonsensical.

That's typical, I guess. You are so unable to accept that you didn't understand what I posted that you're now accusing me of dishonesty for pointing out where you went wrong.

It would be nicer for you to admit you are wrong.

Of course, that should have been obvious from the fact you never mentioned SJWs once in the entire thread.

Yeah, I should have made it more clear but it doesn't change anything about your erroneous interpretation.

Who are these people who use a word in a certain way yet do not want others to use the word in this way? What is their motivation?

You want names, now? Don't be ridiculous.

It would be nicer for you to admit you are wrong.

I meant exactly what I said I meant.

 

[baron]

You want names, now? Don't be ridiculous.

Not necessarily, although I don't see why not. No, just give me an example of someone using a word in a certain way but not wanting others to do likewise. One example shouldn't be so hard since you maintain that for a single word, 'racist', the group of people to whom this behaviour applies is so large as to form a sizeable minority.

 

[Belz...]

Not necessarily, although I don't see why not. No, just give me an example of someone using a word in a certain way but not wanting others to do likewise.

Again, that's not what I said. I said that they don't want to foist their definition on other people. And they're not using as BS a definition as the SJWs.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm not aware of any commonly used version of the definition that distinguishes between this situation and another. Treating another race as an inferior fits the definition, as I understand it.

We are now talking about what people mean, rather than how they define the word. For myself, your comment is why I think including "unjustified" in the definition is a problem.

That sounds about right. My point was also that it's the definition largely in use, but made no claim about how large of a majority are using it, neither would I dare try to guess. That's where baron went wrong. Of course, his insistence of making this discussion personal sure didn't help get my cooperation in clarifying the matter.

I suspect that a large majority of people would probably agree that it is your definition that they are using (or any similar definition they were offered). What isn't clear to me is whether they in fact agree with it, and with one another. Very few people are pushed on this kind of thing. The social convention is to assume that the meaning of racism is obvious and, at least in my experience, there is some social risk associated with acting like the meaning isn't obvious, just as there can be if asks for clarification of what is meant by rape.

 

[shuttlt]

1) One single definition for the word is 'in use', yet
2) A small minority wants to make the word mean something different.

Couldn't there be a third group who use the word in a different way to the first groups definition and aren't aware that they are using a different definition, or are comfortable that multiple definitions are possible, or would prefer it if everybody agreed on their meaning but see it as a philosophical disagreement rather than something to be solved by changing the meaning of words.

Personally, I think that well over half of the population in, the UK and US uses the word without having thought it through or committed themselves to a definition as precise as Argumemnon's. They know the social power of the word, and what they should think of people who it applies to, but the are woolly on exactly who it should be applied to and why.

 

[Belz...]

We are now talking about what people mean, rather than how they define the word. For myself, your comment is why I think including "unjustified" in the definition is a problem.

I put it in there because it's possible to justifiably discriminate against black people: if you're casting actors to play Julius Caesar, for example.

 

[shuttlt]

I put it in there because it's possible to justifiably discriminate against black people: if you're casting actors to play Julius Caesar, for example.

I understand why it is tempting to add some sort of caveat, but I suspect that the definition would run into choppy waters if you were specific enough about what you meant by "justifiably", or left it wide open. Again, apartheid South Africa wasn't without justifications.

Also, it seems to me that even in your example, I've seen black actors in Shakespearean history plays where historically there is no justification for them to be. Why not have a black Caesar? Everybody is speaking blank verse in archaic English while pretending to be ancient Romans, the audience is being asked to suspend quite a bit of disbelief already, why would the race of the actor be an issue?

 

[Belz...]

Why not have a black Caesar?

Sure, why not, unless you want to be historically accurate (as much as reasonably possible, anyway). My point is that it's entirely reasonable to want someone who kind-of looks like the original, and it shouldn't be considered wrong to discriminate for that.

 

[shuttlt]

Sure, why not, unless you want to be historically accurate (as much as reasonably possible, anyway). My point is that it's entirely reasonable to want someone who kind-of looks like the original, and it shouldn't be considered wrong to discriminate for that.

It seems to me like a rather arbitrary form of discrimination to be okay with. Potentially that would have a significant impact on the availability of roles for some actors, purely based on their race. It's also not obvious from the definition why this should be OK and other instances of discrimination would fail the justification test. It seems like all this does is move the problem of definition into the word "justified".

 

[baron]

Couldn't there be a third group who use the word in a different way to the first groups definition and aren't aware that they are using a different definition

For certain, this is the group I talked about in my first post. Those that use a different definition to the 'official' one, i.e most of us, in this case.

or are comfortable that multiple definitions are possible

Quite possibly.

or would prefer it if everybody agreed on their meaning but see it as a philosophical disagreement rather than something to be solved by changing the meaning of words.

I doubt it. If you use a word to mean a certain thing then implicit in that usage is that your definition is best. I can't see anybody standing by a certain definition whilst admitting that another definition is more appropriate. People may use a word to mean more than one thing but that's a different matter.

Personally, I think that well over half of the population in, the UK and US uses the word without having thought it through or committed themselves to a definition as precise as Argumemnon's. They know the social power of the word, and what they should think of people who it applies to, but the are woolly on exactly who it should be applied to and why.

My own estimation is that 99% of the population take no notice of the 'official' definition. I tend not to, as I've pointed out, although I believe my definition is a better gauge of ethnic-related hostility than any other (which brings us back to what I was saying before - of course I believe this, otherwise I wouldn't use it).

This is how language evolves. It's not 'wrong' to start using a word in new ways, it's an essential element of linguistic development.

 

[Belz...]

It seems to me like a rather arbitrary form of discrimination to be okay with. Potentially that would have a significant impact on the availability of roles for some actors, purely based on their race. It's also not obvious from the definition why this should be OK and other instances of discrimination would fail the justification test. It seems like all this does is move the problem of definition into the word "justified".

Well I can't explain it further. It's all case-by-case, value judgment in the end. It seems to me like you're arguing about all forms of discrimination, here.

 

[shuttlt]

Well I can't explain it further. It's all case-by-case, value judgment in the end. It seems to me like you're arguing about all forms of discrimination, here.

I agree. I guess my only point, which perhaps is an obvious one, is that the contentious parts of the meaning of your type of racism goes beyond dictionary definitions. Going back to the OP, there are probably a few such broad definitions - one would be yours, another would be about there being some kind of absolute hierarchy of racial superiority. Your one, or one very similar to it, covers the majority of uses, I think. It's just that it glosses over most of whats interesting about what one means by "racism".

 

[Belz...]

I agree. I guess my only point, which perhaps is an obvious one, is that the contentious parts of the meaning of your type of racism goes beyond dictionary definitions. Going back to the OP, there are probably a few such broad definitions - one would be yours, another would be about there being some kind of absolute hierarchy of racial superiority. Your one, or one very similar to it, covers the majority of uses, I think. It's just that it glosses over most of whats interesting about what one means by "racism".

*"About" should have been "against" in the post you quoted. Silly me.

 

[shuttlt]

*"About" should have been "against" in the post you quoted. Silly me.

I didn't mean to be. I guess my position is that what forms of discrimination we are OK with varies very widely, dependant on things like our preferred type of equality, and hence so does the meaning given to the word "racism". As to who gets to play Caesar, I don't have a position.... both viewpoints seem justified to me.

 

[xjx388]

I'm confused by the arguments saying, in effect, that someone who exclaimed, "Stupid ******!" after being knocked off a bike by a black person isn't necessarily a racist person. The mere fact that their first thought was a racial epithet indicates to me that said person is a racist. Maybe not a hate-filled white supremacist, but certainly a person whose worldview is informed by racial biases.

The core problem is that we are all a little bit racist. Any time we make a judgment about someone based on their racial profile, we are committing a racist act. We've all done it. I only care about it when racism is used as an official tool of oppression. Luckily, we've come a long way, babies.