Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Nice try. You aren't reframing this to fit your argument.
Here is what Oxford says:
racist
noun
A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Here is what I wrote when asserted that Oxford supports your position:
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.
You are the one stating that I am insisting on intent. Do you see me saying that in what I've written above? No. I am saying Adder's proposition is flatly absurd.
You wish to argue with me about whether racism requires intent? Okay. Different issue. But one I also answered earlier, numerous times, when I said there are several circumstances in which one could be unintentionally racist.
But again -- THAT IS NOT ADDER'S POINT. His point, that we are ALL born racists because we live in a racist system, is indefensible. I already ripped it to ribbons on the issue that it's factually impossible to prove and facially absurd. I could also attack it from the perspective that it entirely removes human agency and assumes we are idiot vessels acting on social malware injected into us from date of birth, without exception. (Meaning not a single man can overcome this "original sin.")
By the way, let's say I'm born here but at age 10 I move to Venezuela. Am I still inherently racist? Is there any country I could move to that would end the inherent racism? Suppose I move to Germany before age of reason? Still racist? Is there a time spent living in another country after the elapse of which this racism hardwired into all Americans is expunged?
Come on. You know, I know, everybody looking at this discussion rationally knows, the statement "All Americans (or all of any nation of tens or hundreds of millions) are racist" is hyperbolic and frivolous.
I have no misapprehension about possibly changing a mind here. You're dug in pretty hard, so no amount of logic is going to sway you or Adder from that ludicrous proposition. But I'd like you to say it to ten people on the street:
"Every American is inherently racist as a result of having been born here."
Even in a crowd of liberals, at least half of the people will say, "How the hell do you get to that conclusion?"
|
You and I have been trading posts on this for days. If you think I've been simply repeating what Adder has been saying, you haven't been reading what I've said. Among other things, I asked you:
Are there any circumstances in which you are comfortable calling a white person a "racist" where he or she has not openly advocated for white supremacy or self-identified as a racist?
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yes. If they harbor racists views that they keep to themselves, they are still racists. Expressing the view isn't requisite. Hold the view and you're a racist.
I'd also call any person who votes for or supports a racist policy where he could have voted for a non-racist policy with no adverse impact to himself a racist. Example: You work in an industry that is not at all impacted by the election of Candidate A (Racist) or Candidate B (Non Racist). You stand to neither gain nor lose from the election of either. All of those things being equal, you vote for Candidate A. This is causing a racist impact for no reason. I'd conclude there that you either are subconsciously racist or have needlessly contributed to a racist impact, and there are no mitigating factors (you weren't compelled to vote for the racist out of any valid incentive or problem with the opposing candidate). I'd be comfortable with someone labeling your a racist.
|
Your first paragraph covers the second ("feels") and third ("believes") part of the Oxford definition. Your second paragraph speaks to the first ("shows"), but you only believe someone shows prejudice if there is no other possible motivation for what someone does. So, George H.W. Bush makes Willie Horton a household name, but you don't want to call him racist, presumably because the "adverse impact" of his not doing that would have been that he would have been less likely to be President. In the real world, this means you are not willing to call racists "racists" because there might have been some other "mitigating factor" explaining the racist things they did. You will call hypothetical prison guards and joke tellers and voters racist, because you can exclude from the hypothesis anything else that might be a mitigating factor. Again, your racism is like an electron -- it could be flying all over the place, but it's impossible to ever pin it down in practice.
Tell me why that isn't an accurate description of how you think about this.
