You mean the dictionary definitions that you pick and chose from, and arbitrarily ignore when you feel like? Like the demand you have made that bias, preference and inclination must be forms of superiority?
I'm not ignoring any dictionary definitions. Your preferred definition (Merriam Webster definition number 1), requires a belief in racial superiority. Awesome, I've shown you how that still fits. Also I don't disagree with it, a belief that one race is generally superior to another is racism. My chosen definition (not ignoring yours) is Merriam Webster definition number 3, which does NOT ANYWHERE require a belief in racial superiority. That one fits too, and is still racism. And it reads in its entirety "racial prejudice and discrimination". No "superiority" anywhere to be found in that definition. In otherwords, and I'm going to lay this one out:
RACISM DOES NOT REQUIRE A BELIEF IN GENERAL SUPERIORITY
Not only does Merriam Webster include that among the various definitions of racism, I've also given you examples (which you've attempted to dodge) highlighting exactly why the dictionary would be remiss if it did not include that third definition. My examples were the racist belief that one race can be better at sports (and that belief is used AGAINST that race). And I've given you an example of a sexist who is sexist AGAINST the gender that she is and believes is at least equal (overall).
In other words, I'm thoroughly all over you on this argument. You think racism requires superiority,
it doesn't. And that's not just because technically it doesn't, it doesn't because that's not the only way the word is used, and I've given you concrete examples, which you have not chosen to argue against, which demonstrate that that understanding of racism is required.
Then, separately, thoroughly, and unnecessarily, I went
on to tackle
why your claim of superiority breaks down. It does so because superiority is another broad term which gets used in many ways, and can be used to turn dictionary definition number 1 into dictionary definition number 3. And that happens
because the definitions are related.
I've demonstrated, categorically, and undeniably, several different ways, that your attempt to narrow and marginalize the concept of racism is wrong. First, your adherence to one definition over the other is wrong (technically, and from a practical perspective). Second, your adherence to that one definition is
also misguided because it can manifest itself more subtly than you give it credit for. My demonstration of BOTH of those two points which are EACH sufficient to destroy your position has not been refuted.
Your desire to broaden the term of racism results in everyone being racist, yet that somehow is better and more likley to get people to accept it!
I'm not a utilitarian. I think they are, I think they're more likely to understand it because it's based on principle rather than wishful thinking. But even if they weren't more likely to accept it, it doesn't matter (I do this a lot by the way, walk down the logic tree on both branches to reach the same conclusion). The fact of the matter is that people do discriminate and have prejudice against other races, and all kinds of unearned features, all the time. People don't want to have sex with someone whose personality they don't like, who has a giant mole on their face, who has a glandular issue that renders them over 200 lbs overweight, who is the gender they do not prefer.... these preferences are not defensible from a rational perspective, and they're not defensible from a fairness perspective. You prefer to take care of your own kids over the kids of your neighbors in part, solely because they are yours - that's genetic discrimination in every way that racism or "lookism" is.
You do not have to defend your personal preferences. It is your right to be as racist as you like. That is your freedom of speech. If you want to associate with beautiful people, nobody should force you to associate with ugly people. But you need to understand what you sacrifice when you make that choice, you might sacrifice an ugly but otherwise very compatible life partner. And that's fine, that's your personal determination.
The bottom line is that you
do respond to men and women differently in different situations. You
do respond to different races differently in different situations. You
do respond to peoples' birth defects and their cancerous growths and their botched plastic surgery. You respond to their breast size, and their height.
There is no denying any of this, and there is no sense in pretending that it cannot manifest itself in countless ways. The important part is to understand these responses so that you can make good logical decisions about them in each of the situations in which they present themselves. You might
want to hire the hot secretary who will be incompetent, and in my view, that's your prerogative. But if you
recognize that you're doing it, you can control yourself to make a more logical decision.
You can't have it both ways. Either its always a superiority, or bias/preference/inclination can exist without the need for considering one superior to the other.
I win either way. I know what the answer to that question is, and you know what my answer to that question is.
Do you not mean to the exclusion of all others?
No. I mean over
an other (which, just fyi, is what I said).
I've read that a dozen times and it still doesn't scan.
Ok, I'll take another stab at it:
you
No its labeling a problem, a rather key difference.
me
White people, and the "privilege" of not being discriminated against, are and is not a problem.
In the term white privilege, there are two elements "white" and "privilege", and there's the combination of the two.
- White people are not a problem, that would be obviously racist and wrong (despite your
apparent statement to the contrary)
- Privilege, in this case, is the presumed privilege to not be discriminated against on the basis of skin color. And that's not a problem, that's a good thing. That's what we want.
- White privilege is the presumed privilege of white people to not have to deal with the implications of discrimination on the basis of skin color. And that's not a problem, that's what we want.
In short, white privilege is not a problem, it's how people ought to be treated if they're to be treated fairly. It is the fact that other people presumably don't enjoy that same privilege which is the problem. The problem is not that white privilege exists, the problem is not that white people don't have to worry about being discriminated against on the basis of skin color (and sometimes they do btw). The problem is that people of other colors
do have to worry about this. It's the discrimination (in many forms) that's the problem. It's the racism (in many forms) that's the problem.
And as long as you continue to insinuate that it's white people who are the problem, which is something you posted (and haven't bothered to explain how else it should have been interpreted), even just by using the term "White privilege", you will continue to perpetuate the problem.
You forgot to answer my question.
He doesn't answer questions. The information only flows one way with him. He's like a news ticker, his posts just come up every once in a while and say stuff.
