Yes, and racism is also a social hierarchy and systemic structure that utilizes tools of oppression to allow the in-group to have power and control over the out-group. Calling it prejudice alone is not acknowledging the full picture.
Yeah, this thread has been fascinating. It’s the most basic concept and people are wild’n out. My last comment at the bottom of this thing I think will summarize it well for anyone who reads through it all. I think the biggest concern is why people are so resistant to understanding the additional power/control and systemic shit within racism. I use “gravity” as an example, but when it comes to racism, these are people’s lives. And I’d hate to think how invalidating it would make someone feel to hear this “no” and “check the dictionary” shit in a conversation outside of the Internet.
Lol mate, you’re being willfully obtuse. As you already know, there is knowledge beyond the confines of the dictionary, and the dictionary is merely attempting to summarize a very complex subject. If you’d like to broaden your perspective, you can turn to the research which is where I’m pulling my definition. If you’d like to understand why it’s so important to include those other things I mentioned in the definition, there’s plenty of reading opportunities to explain that.
He may be wrong, just not tunnel visioned like a lot of other theorys. Its not purely intent to harm nor purely power/ability that defines racism. 2 or more sides of the same coin. Both aspects share the same word.
The dictionary is not a replacement for the social sciences, friend. It seems like you have a narrative in your head about why I am arguing this point, but I’d like to point out that your argument is currently standing on “but the dictionary though” in the face of decades of research.
Social sciences, and dictionaries are two seperate things. No one is arguing that dictionaries replace social sciences, what people are saying is the common definition still stands.
If you’ll afford me a long comment, I have an example that I think will explain my confusion. If you check the Oxford dictionary, you’ll see it define “gravity” as a force. Let’s say someone says “gravity is a force” in a thread much like this. I and others clarify “well, it presents as a force in some respects, but very much not like one in others.”
People respond “No, it’s a force.”
I clarify further how that’s not entirely the case.
“Check the dictionary.”
Yes, but the dictionary is just trying to summarize a very complex subject in physics and is not a replacement for the sciences.
“No one is equating the dictionary and the sciences, but people still use the dictionary definition.”
I understand that; indeed that’s how this thread formed. What I don’t understand is why, when I say that gravity is not entirely a force, it is met with a rejection of that clarification and nuance. Gravity is not entirely a force; it’s way more complicated than that. Racism is not just prejudice; it’s way more complicated than that. I’m confused why this is such an issue.
Except now you’re telling me gravity only applies to people of colour.
And in your own analogy, you don’t deny that gravity is a force. You don’t deny that gravity makes things go down.
Racism as in racial prejudice is still a thing. No one has discovered some fundamental force that stops racial prejudice from being a thing. What you’ve done is started to view everything through class structures while denying racism can operate on an individual to individual level. That’s not reality, that’s just Marxism.
deleted by creator
Yes, and racism is also a social hierarchy and systemic structure that utilizes tools of oppression to allow the in-group to have power and control over the out-group. Calling it prejudice alone is not acknowledging the full picture.
Oh my gosh, the closest thing to reasonable and you get a “consult your dictionary” comment.
Yeah, this thread has been fascinating. It’s the most basic concept and people are wild’n out. My last comment at the bottom of this thing I think will summarize it well for anyone who reads through it all. I think the biggest concern is why people are so resistant to understanding the additional power/control and systemic shit within racism. I use “gravity” as an example, but when it comes to racism, these are people’s lives. And I’d hate to think how invalidating it would make someone feel to hear this “no” and “check the dictionary” shit in a conversation outside of the Internet.
deleted by creator
Lol mate, you’re being willfully obtuse. As you already know, there is knowledge beyond the confines of the dictionary, and the dictionary is merely attempting to summarize a very complex subject. If you’d like to broaden your perspective, you can turn to the research which is where I’m pulling my definition. If you’d like to understand why it’s so important to include those other things I mentioned in the definition, there’s plenty of reading opportunities to explain that.
Yet dictionaries still exist, and their definitions don’t become invalid just because you want to avoid criticism.
Ive heard gross iterations by others (even in this thread) of what @flamingarms said, he has a fairly reasonable take in comparison
Unfortunately they have to prove it, but won’t be able to… Because you know… They’re wrong.
He may be wrong, just not tunnel visioned like a lot of other theorys. Its not purely intent to harm nor purely power/ability that defines racism. 2 or more sides of the same coin. Both aspects share the same word.
The dictionary is not a replacement for the social sciences, friend. It seems like you have a narrative in your head about why I am arguing this point, but I’d like to point out that your argument is currently standing on “but the dictionary though” in the face of decades of research.
Social sciences, and dictionaries are two seperate things. No one is arguing that dictionaries replace social sciences, what people are saying is the common definition still stands.
If you’ll afford me a long comment, I have an example that I think will explain my confusion. If you check the Oxford dictionary, you’ll see it define “gravity” as a force. Let’s say someone says “gravity is a force” in a thread much like this. I and others clarify “well, it presents as a force in some respects, but very much not like one in others.” People respond “No, it’s a force.” I clarify further how that’s not entirely the case. “Check the dictionary.” Yes, but the dictionary is just trying to summarize a very complex subject in physics and is not a replacement for the sciences. “No one is equating the dictionary and the sciences, but people still use the dictionary definition.”
I understand that; indeed that’s how this thread formed. What I don’t understand is why, when I say that gravity is not entirely a force, it is met with a rejection of that clarification and nuance. Gravity is not entirely a force; it’s way more complicated than that. Racism is not just prejudice; it’s way more complicated than that. I’m confused why this is such an issue.
Except now you’re telling me gravity only applies to people of colour.
And in your own analogy, you don’t deny that gravity is a force. You don’t deny that gravity makes things go down.
Racism as in racial prejudice is still a thing. No one has discovered some fundamental force that stops racial prejudice from being a thing. What you’ve done is started to view everything through class structures while denying racism can operate on an individual to individual level. That’s not reality, that’s just Marxism.
It’s more than that, though.
deleted by creator
Racism is my favorate word in any spelling bee because of this. So simple its easy to remember. Especially in comparison to 10 letter words.