7 ms·

>"racism = power + prejudice", all whites have institutional power, etc) Oh please. The attempt to redefine "racism" to exclude white people is itself hilariou

>"racism = power + prejudice", all whites have institutional power, etc) Oh please. The attempt to redefine "racism" to exclude white people is itself hilariously racist. It's propaganda that tries to influence people through deceptive language. If the people behind that had honest intentions they would have created a new word to describe the phenomenon rather than try to redefine existing words.

mizzack 5y ago
I don't think the person you're replying to said anything that disagrees with your assessment.
- tuesdayrain 5y ago
  He implied this definition was the consensus, when it's an alternate definition used mainly by anti-white activists.
  - Huwyt_Nashi052 5y ago
    And these anti-White activists have extraordinary power in academia, politics, the press, etc. You won't find a relevant textbook in use in major universities that doesn't support this definition, perhaps even explicitly. It would be a brave politician to openly object to this concept. What is said in private may be different, but publicly this definition has the consensus in the modern West.
    - tuesdayrain 5y ago
      Yes it is an unfortunately common definition among the groups you mentioned, but I still believe those people to be a minority relative to the population. The dictionary.com definition for racism says nothing about power being a requirement: A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      > And these anti-White activists have extraordinary power in academia, politics, the press, etc. They do have a lot of power, so aren't they capable of being racist against white people, even when racism is defined as power+prejudice?
      - wutbrodo 5y ago
        There is literally nobody in this thread arguing that the redefinition is salutary, or even sane. I think that the idea that "racism" only applies to certain races isn't just foolish, it's evil. But one can describe the _existence_ of a phenomenon without endorsing it. The bubbles who subscribe to this definition are the relevant ones when discussing how Tiktok's content policy was written.
        leereeves 5y ago
        I'm not sure why you would take my comment (which was simply expanding on someone else's comment) as being directed at you or implying that you agree with the redefinition. I'm just pointing out the obvious logical mistake being made by generally rational academics and textbook authors. Obviously we don't often see reason triumph over political advantage among politicians and the press, but without the support of educators that redefinition would have far less support.
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      My use of "consensus" in the OP comment seems to have been mistaken for approval a couple of times in this thread, so I should point out that this ^ comment exactly captures what I'm saying, as does my clarifying comment elsewhere in the thread.
  - mizzack 5y ago
    In the context of social media Trust & Safety policies, it definitely seems to be consensus. > We are committed to combating abuse motivated by hatred, prejudice or intolerance, particularly abuse that seeks to silence the voices of those who have been historically marginalized. For this reason, we prohibit behavior that targets individuals with abuse based on protected category. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu... Note the weight of "Particularly" above. Reddit had a similar policy but recently removed the clause "For example, the rule does not protect groups who are in the majority".
    - tuesdayrain 5y ago
      I disagree with the logic that Twitter ToS choosing to focus on combating a specific type of abuse is indicative of the definition of "racism". It does not mention that word anywhere.
wutbrodo 5y ago
It's a very short comment. Do me the favor of reading the entire thing before beclowning yourself so thoroughly in responding. Literally two sentences later, I call this worldview "childish" and describe it as "afflicting" those who subscribe to it. The fact that there's a consensus around it (especially the narrower type of consensus that motivates the content policies of a social network) doesn't at all imply support. It's simply not what the word means.

mizzack 5y ago

I don't think the person you're replying to said anything that disagrees with your assessment.

tuesdayrain 5y ago
He implied this definition was the consensus, when it's an alternate definition used mainly by anti-white activists.
- Huwyt_Nashi052 5y ago
  And these anti-White activists have extraordinary power in academia, politics, the press, etc. You won't find a relevant textbook in use in major universities that doesn't support this definition, perhaps even explicitly. It would be a brave politician to openly object to this concept. What is said in private may be different, but publicly this definition has the consensus in the modern West.
  - tuesdayrain 5y ago
    Yes it is an unfortunately common definition among the groups you mentioned, but I still believe those people to be a minority relative to the population. The dictionary.com definition for racism says nothing about power being a requirement: A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    > And these anti-White activists have extraordinary power in academia, politics, the press, etc. They do have a lot of power, so aren't they capable of being racist against white people, even when racism is defined as power+prejudice?
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      There is literally nobody in this thread arguing that the redefinition is salutary, or even sane. I think that the idea that "racism" only applies to certain races isn't just foolish, it's evil. But one can describe the _existence_ of a phenomenon without endorsing it. The bubbles who subscribe to this definition are the relevant ones when discussing how Tiktok's content policy was written.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        I'm not sure why you would take my comment (which was simply expanding on someone else's comment) as being directed at you or implying that you agree with the redefinition. I'm just pointing out the obvious logical mistake being made by generally rational academics and textbook authors. Obviously we don't often see reason triumph over political advantage among politicians and the press, but without the support of educators that redefinition would have far less support.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    My use of "consensus" in the OP comment seems to have been mistaken for approval a couple of times in this thread, so I should point out that this ^ comment exactly captures what I'm saying, as does my clarifying comment elsewhere in the thread.
- mizzack 5y ago
  In the context of social media Trust & Safety policies, it definitely seems to be consensus. > We are committed to combating abuse motivated by hatred, prejudice or intolerance, particularly abuse that seeks to silence the voices of those who have been historically marginalized. For this reason, we prohibit behavior that targets individuals with abuse based on protected category. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu... Note the weight of "Particularly" above. Reddit had a similar policy but recently removed the clause "For example, the rule does not protect groups who are in the majority".
  - tuesdayrain 5y ago
    I disagree with the logic that Twitter ToS choosing to focus on combating a specific type of abuse is indicative of the definition of "racism". It does not mention that word anywhere.

wutbrodo 5y ago

It's a very short comment. Do me the favor of reading the entire thing before beclowning yourself so thoroughly in responding. Literally two sentences later, I call this worldview "childish" and describe it as "afflicting" those who subscribe to it. The fact that there's a consensus around it (especially the narrower type of consensus that motivates the content policies of a social network) doesn't at all imply support. It's simply not what the word means.