Racism is prejudice + power, right?

[Fishking]

I keep hearing from progressives that you can't be racist against white people because they have changed the actual definition to be prejudice + power. Even in this definition there can be anti-white racism because there are dynamics where a white person would be in the minority and the systemic power in their area is POC.

Here we have Lori Lightfoot, who is the mayor of Chicago. That is a position of significant power. She has said that she will only give 1 on 1 interviews with POC. So that's prejudice + power, so this is racism.

Explain why it's not.

Lightfoot Says She Will Only Give 1-on-1 Interviews to Journalists of Color

As Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot approaches the two-year anniversary of her inauguration, reaching the halfway point through her first term, she told the city’s media outlets that she would grant one-on-one interviews to mark the occasion, but with one condition: she will only speak with...

www.nbcchicago.com

As Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot approaches the two-year anniversary of her inauguration, reaching the halfway point through her first term, she told the city's media outlets that she would grant one-on-one interviews to mark the occasion, but with one condition: she will only speak with journalists of color.

 

[Acadia]

Do you really want to hear their neo-marxist b.s. about how racism really isn't racism if it's directed toward whites?
We KNOW they are racist af.
Speak the truth to their power.

 

[Fishking]

Also, ib4 the expected, "Oh the poor oppressed white person." dodge. It's not the racist Olympics or a racist pie where if one group is discriminated against it means that others also aren't discriminated against, and on a worse level.

 

[Fishking]

Do you really want to hear their neo-marxist b.s. about how racism really isn't racism if it's directed toward whites?
We KNOW they are racist af.
Speak the truth to their power.

I'm interested to see what kind of pretzels they will twist into to explain why I'm wrong.

 

[Acadia]

I'm interested to see what kind of pretzels they will twist into to explain why I'm wrong.

"White privilege"
"Systemic racism"
"Institutional racism"

We've heard all the neo-logisms before, but perhaps you'll get something new, original and absurdist.

 

[DataPoint]

Yes, minorities can be infected with racism as well.

 

[Fishking]

Yes, minorities can be infected with racism as well.

Could you be more specific? The thread is about racism against white people.

 

[Fishking]

"White privilege"
"Systemic racism"
"Institutional racism"

We've heard all the neo-logisms before, but perhaps you'll get something new, original and absurdist.

Right...but in this case, the institution is a POC and it's discriminatory against white people, which defeats those. However, you're likely correct that they won't say those things without understanding that the example in the OP is literally that.

 

[Mr Person]

I keep hearing from progressives that you can't be racist against white people because they have changed the actual definition to be prejudice + power. Even in this definition there can be anti-white racism because there are dynamics where a white person would be in the minority and the systemic power in their area is POC.

Here we have Lori Lightfoot, who is the mayor of Chicago. That is a position of significant power. She has said that she will only give 1 on 1 interviews with POC. So that's prejudice + power, so this is racism.

Explain why it's not.

Lightfoot Says She Will Only Give 1-on-1 Interviews to Journalists of Color

As Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot approaches the two-year anniversary of her inauguration, reaching the halfway point through her first term, she told the city’s media outlets that she would grant one-on-one interviews to mark the occasion, but with one condition: she will only speak with...

www.nbcchicago.com

As Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot approaches the two-year anniversary of her inauguration, reaching the halfway point through her first term, she told the city's media outlets that she would grant one-on-one interviews to mark the occasion, but with one condition: she will only speak with journalists of color.

Because sociology has its own definitions for its own reasons, and you would have to study it to understand why. But I would imagine that because sociology generally looks at the development, structure, and functioning of human society, it is absolutely essential to define things studied in sociology by who is in a majority power and who is in a minority power. If you think a bit, it should become clear why this would make the most sense.

1. If a person only accepted interviews from one race, that alone would not be enough for colloquial racism: it would have to be motivated by a belief about inherent inferior/superior characteristics across races.

2. If that person did it because they considered that one race superior, that would be colloquially racist.

But sociology looks at majority vs. minority power. So sociology would agree with merriam-webster that #1 is not racist; sociology would also say it's not bigoted either.

Sociology would say #2 is not racist, but is bigotry. It doesn't give a free pass.



Personally, I'd call #2 racist regardless of power structure and instead choose to say that it's far worse when the majority power is racist against a minority power, but is still bad - but not nearly as bad given the power dynamic - when the minority is racist against the majority. However, I'm not a sociologist.

But because I'm a professional, I'm not going to sit here wallowing in proud ignorance and declare sociology to be stupid. I'd only do that if I went and became one, then started dismantling the current approach in papers/etc.



So the real question is: are you trying to have an actual conversation, or is the idea to say "herr herr, I don't get it so it is dumb" as a way of generally crapping on the concept of eradicating racism.





PS: I'm no "progressive." I'm just a guy who does not think his ignorance better than someone else's knowledge and experience.

 

[phoenix2020]

Pick any two races, A and B, and I can identify a part of the world where A is the majority and wields power, and discriminates against B. This is a universal truth; the actual skin color of A and B don't really matter much. I imagine only people who have lived in various parts of the world with different racial majorities and minorities will know what I'm talking about, although the unique thing about the United States is that you don't need to leave the country to find an example of a community majority discriminating against that community minority. Being a melting pot, we have the unique advantage of having all of the world's racism well represented within our own borders

 

[MrWonka]

I keep hearing from progressives that you can't be racist against white people because they have changed the actual definition to be prejudice + power. Even in this definition there can be anti-white racism because there are dynamics where a white person would be in the minority and the systemic power in their area is POC.

Here we have Lori Lightfoot, who is the mayor of Chicago. That is a position of significant power. She has said that she will only give 1 on 1 interviews with POC. So that's prejudice + power, so this is racism.

Explain why it's not.

In this one specific incident, I would agree that it's a very poor choice and a bad look. I'm glad to hear you're finally coming around to the reality of how Liberals are correct about this.

Then again given that Trump also refused to give an interview to anybody but Fox News, you can't really talk.

 

[Fishking]

Personally, I'd call #2 racist regardless of power structure and instead choose to say that it's far worse when the majority power is racist against a minority power, but is still bad - but not nearly as bad given the power dynamic - when the minority is racist against the majority. However, I'm not a sociologist.

A reasonable post, especially the part I put in bold, but that would put you at odds with what seems to be the majority opinion in sociology. However, I'm sure there isn't 100% consensus on their weird definition of racism, and it's a soft science, so no one can really say they are speaking the only valid position.

I also agree that racism is worse from the majority against a minority, but that either way is still bad. One just lacks as much punch as the other, at least on a systemic level. That's what I was getting at with post #3. However, I'm sure that the one mentally challenged kid that was kidnapped and tortured on Facebook live because he was white felt the full force of racism as much as about anyone.

 

[MrWonka]

Pick any two races, A and B, and I can identify a part of the world where A is the majority and wields power, and discriminates against B. This is a universal truth; the actual skin color of A and B don't really matter much.

Seriousy? I'm fairly certain that if you're a white person in almost any part of the world you're going to get treated very well. Maybe in some rough parts of South America or the Middle East you'll have some issues, but from what I heard from Americans traveling to Japan or China seems to indicate you get treated very very well.

 

[Fishking]

In this one specific incident, I would agree that it's a very poor choice and a bad look. I'm glad to hear you're finally coming around to the reality of how Liberals are correct about this.

Then again given that Trump also refused to give an interview to anybody but Fox News, you can't really talk.

1. I'm not coming around to anything. I'm using the progressives' own definitions against them. I still think their definitions and ideology are complete bunk and don't hold up to reason.

2. This thread isn't about Trump, though he did do interviews with more than Fox News.

 

[phoenix2020]

Seriousy? I'm fairly certain that if you're a white person in almost any part of the world you're going to get treated very well. Maybe in some rough parts of South America or the Middle East you'll have some issues, but from what I heard from Americans traveling to Japan or China seems to indicate you get treated very very well.

Not so much. Don't get me wrong, you won't get jumped while walking to work or anything like that. It's fine if you're there on your short business trip. But dating or marrying locals? Purchasing a home or property? Trying to seek citizenship or other rights? Trying to participate in civic life? Prepare for a very different experience. Also, never conflate tolerating or accommodating a foreigner for his or her wealth, with being fully accepting of his or her race. These are very different things.

The US has far more racial heterogeneity than most of the world and for the most part, in my own travels, I have found the US to be among the least racist of countries, when all things are considered. Having virtually every kind of racism represented here gives us the unique opportunity to overcome each. Imagine the kind of national advantage that could give us, were America to truly forge a culture that tolerates and benefits everyone regardless of their race or ethnicity. That's something no other nation would be able to match, for generations, and that would translate directly to economic and national security. Maybe I'm looking for the bright side of things but I really do believe if we could get over our zero-sum thinking around race relationships, we could create an exceptional strength a nation like China would never be able to match. Unfortunately, most sides of this debate have adopted zero-sum thinking (as seen in this thread and others) hence we are for the most part our own worst enemy.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I keep hearing from progressives that you can't be racist against white people because they have changed the actual definition to be prejudice + power.

1: You haven’t heard this from anyone because you’re making it up; 2: the definition and idea you’re butchering is designed to express what should be obvious: white folks can certainly be victims of prejudice, they just can’t be oppressed by it.

What Black people face are angry white conservatives constantly insisting that George Floyd had it comin while poor “Ashli” deserved a pillow with a mint on it. it’s ingrained in you to define down what happens to Black folks.

Cause you an American, and in America we just don’t think Black Lives Matter.

 

[AmNat]

Because sociology has its own definitions for its own reasons, and you would have to study it to understand why. But I would imagine that because sociology generally looks at the development, structure, and functioning of human society, it is absolutely essential to define things studied in sociology by who is in a majority power and who is in a minority power. If you think a bit, it should become clear why this would make the most sense.

1. If a person only accepted interviews from one race, that alone would not be enough for colloquial racism: it would have to be motivated by a belief about inherent inferior/superior characteristics across races.

2. If that person did it because they considered that one race superior, that would be colloquially racist.

But sociology looks at majority vs. minority power. So sociology would agree with merriam-webster that #1 is not racist; sociology would also say it's not bigoted either.

Sociology would say #2 is not racist, but is bigotry. It doesn't give a free pass.



Personally, I'd call #2 racist regardless of power structure and instead choose to say that it's far worse when the majority power is racist against a minority power, but is still bad - but not nearly as bad given the power dynamic - when the minority is racist against the majority. However, I'm not a sociologist.

But because I'm a professional, I'm not going to sit here wallowing in proud ignorance and declare sociology to be stupid. I'd only do that if I went and became one, then started dismantling the current approach in papers/etc.



So the real question is: are you trying to have an actual conversation, or is the idea to say "herr herr, I don't get it so it is dumb" as a way of generally crapping on the concept of eradicating racism.





PS: I'm no "progressive." I'm just a guy who does not think his ignorance better than someone else's knowledge and experience.

Sociology is not, in general, a legitimate scientific discipline and therefore does not warrant the respect due to scientific disciplines.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The US has far more racial heterogeneity than most of the world and for the most part, in my own travels, I have found the US to be among the least racist of countries, when all things are considered.

How pleasant! Ya hear that, Black people? It could be much friggin worse!

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Sociology is not, in general, a legitimate scientific discipline and therefore does not warrant the respect due to scientific disciplines.

 

[JMB802]

It's easier to get away with racist behavior if there is a power imbalance but a power imbalance is not necessary.

 

[phoenix2020]

How pleasant! Ya hear that, Black people? It could be much friggin worse!

It's very unpleasant but if you find joy in it, well, you do you.

But yes it can be terrible out there. You could be Japanese in China or Korea. You could be an Indian Hindu in Pakistan. You could be Filipino in Dubai or the UAE. Or, white in select parts of Africa. Believe it or not, the world's a big place. You should check out some of it. In most of these places there's little to no effort to correct racial injustices. What's amazing about the US is the persistent, ongoing efforts to improve, right wrongs and strive toward greater equality. I personally think that is great, even in spite of the setbacks, because as a nation we're trying.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I keep hearing from progressives that you can't be racist against white people because they have changed the actual definition to be prejudice + power.

You can't be a racist if you support affirmative action, which only white people oppose, because it is based on the fundamental belief in equal opportunities for all Americans. That is what people like me are talking about.

Racism is simply the hatred of specific racial minorities itself. Even if you do nothing about it, believing all members of a racial demographic are evil just because of their skin colors makes you a racist.

 

[Fishking]

1: You haven’t heard this from anyone because you’re making it up; 2: the definition and idea you’re butchering is designed to express what should be obvious: white folks can certainly be victims of prejudice, they just can’t be oppressed by it.

That you're uneducated or unaware that the definition I provided isn't what is found among progressives and many in the field of sociology is not my fault. This isn't even uncommon knowledge but somehow it eludes you. Weird.

What Black people face are angry white conservatives constantly insisting that George Floyd had it comin while poor “Ashli” deserved a pillow with a mint on it. it’s ingrained in you to define down what happens to Black folks.

Floyd didn't deserve to be killed but neither does he deserve to be sainted. He was a piece of shit human being, but being a dirtbag doesn't mean you should be killed by the state. Ashli was killed as a consequence of her own actions. Though I'll say that I don't think there are many that believe that the Ashli shooting wasn't justified.

Cause you an American, and in America we just don’t think Black Lives Matter.

Black lives are the only thing that matters. When does it ever make the news in the same way when I white person is killed by the police, which is a greater net number than any other group?

 

[Fishking]

You can't be a racist if you support affirmative action, which only white people oppose, because it is based on the fundamental belief in equal opportunities for all Americans. That is what people like me are talking about.

Huh? This doesn't make any sense.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Only giving interviews with a certain race is called racial discrimination. The Civil Rights act frowns upon racial discrimination. Title 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Prohibits state and local governments from denying access to public property and facilities based on color, race, religion, or national origin. Giving access to a government official solely based on race is pretty bad.,