Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, you're reading Oxford wrong. Oxford doesn't require intent: "A person who shows *or* feels prejudice *or* who believes...." Acting in a prejudiced way is enough -- the racist does not need to feel prejudice or believe racist things. That's what TM and Adder and I have all said, there are plenty of people who show prejudice even if they do not feel that they are prejudiced or think that they believe racist things. We, like Oxford, call them "racists." That is the crux of it, isn't it?
I can't tell what you disagree with Adder apart, other than that you use the word "racist" differently. Maybe if you try to respond without using that word, we'll get closer to clarity.
|
You're parsing the definition. It's short. People can read it in full.
Sure, you can argue one can show discrimination toward others unintentionally. But Adder's point was that because we live in this country, we are (like our grandparents) all automatically racist.
That's flatly nuts, unless you believe that ALL people in this country at some point show discrimination toward others. That cannot be said. There is no way anyone can satisfy that standard.
The clarity you seek is something I've repeatedly provided:
You may not logically (and certainly not credibly) make the statement that all of our grandparents were racists, or that all current Americans are racist, simply because they were born into a society filled with racist systems.
Why? Because it's impossible. You would have to prove, using the Oxford definition, that everybody in those groups at some point showed discrimination or felt discriminatory feelings toward others. That's an unsustainable claim.
What Adder can say is, "We have systemic racism in this country, and a lot of people are unintentionally and intentionally racist." He can also say, as TM has, "If you vote GOP, even for non-racist reasons, you are enabling racists."
I suspect, however, that Adder, and people with similar thinking, like the "punch" of saying "everyone is a racist." There's a compelling extremism in saying things like that. Makes people think. Caused me to write 20 posts refuting that linguistic and logical foul. But it's wrong. And being wrong on important indictments like that makes a serious and sober discussion of the issue which might actually lead to policy changes all the more difficult to hold.
