Good intentions do not absolve people of objectively bad ideas. I drew that comparison because they are playing opposite sides of the same game of identity politics, which I'm saying is inherently flawed
It's interesting that you say that, since looking through your post history here you've engaged in identity politics all the same.
Everyone engages in some form of identity politics. The post we were responding to engaged in identity politics as well because they believed white men were discriminated against the most.
If you want to make an arguments make an actual argument against their position, not one against the concept of identity politics because that's an inherently flawed argument.
> If you want to make an arguments make an actual argument against their position, not one against the concept of identity politics because that's an inherently flawed argument.
It's not inherently flawed to a liberal of the 1960s - 2010s, who idealized universal principles, individual identities, colorblindness, and single standards of behavior to be applied to all, regardless of sex, race, etc.
Please, have the intellectual honesty not to erase that entire era. It's not necessary to do that in order to promote the contrary ideology of intersectionality.
Right, as in I'm arguing that it's a bad way to view the world... Total non sequitur. No, not everyone engages in identity politics. Only people who are looking for an easy out and not individually assessing ideas and their ramifications
What about the fact that again, you've engaged in identity politics here on HN? My entire point is that it's hypocritical to decry identity politics while also engaging in identity politics.
Complaining about identity politics is a big way white men practice identity politics, Charles. When there's a problem, refusing to let people talk about the problem becomes part of the problem.
What makes you think it's ok to make wide, sweeping generalizations about how people of a certain race and gender think and how do you think that doesn't constitute racism?
As stated before, pointing out and having a clear and honest dialog about racism isn't in itself racism.
That, and white people can't experience racism. They may at some point in their lives be discriminated against based on their race, unlikely though it is and extremely unlikely it'll be in some massively detrimental way. But, that's not racism.
Also, "wide sweeping generalizations about how people of a certain race and gender" is a mischaracterization of what's happening. In the Charlottesville example, white supremacists set out to do what they do by the very definition of their organization - oppress non whites. There is no sweeping generalization there. If they weren't out to oppress non whites, they wouldn't be white supremacists lol.
> That, and white people can't experience racism. They may at some point in their lives be discriminated against based on their race, unlikely though it is and extremely unlikely it'll be in some massively detrimental way. But, that's not racism.
Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism.
Expert definitions often differ from common usage. E.g., people talk about the "memory" of their computer, meaning their hard drive space. (And when they say "hard drive" they often mean the whole tower.) The common definition for "energy" contains things that would horrify physicists. And the dictionary gives definitions for things like astrological signs, too.
The definition komali2 is using seems to be a pretty standard expert definition. If you disagree with it, you should explain what books on racism you've read and which one you're getting your definition from.
> The definition komali2 is using seems to be a pretty standard expert definition.
It's an activist propaganda definition created specifically to excuse black (specifically black, though of course it incidentally has since been used for other groups) bigotry against whites (again, specifically, though it incidentally can excuse bigotry by blacks and others against other targets, as well).
It's perverse in practice and intent, because the mere acceptance of the definition as correct and it's narrowed concept of “racism” as meaningful creates exactly the kind of social privilege for those perceived as being disadvantaged that makes it possible for them to be racist by that narrowed definition, and that's the whole propaganda purpose of activists promoting the definition.
It's much better to use the standard definition of racism while understanding that the positions of power (both relative and absolute) of the racist(s) are impact multipliers (as positions of power are for anything, racism is hardly unique).
> Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism.
I didn't realize you were qualified to assess every non-white person's definition of racism. Do you not see how you're over-reaching in terms of speaking for other people?
> If you disagree with it, you should explain what books on racism you've read and which one you're getting your definition from
I understand that the consequences of racism have been messy, but the definition is not. The definition is simple and plain and I gave you my source but I'll repeat it: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".
I'm curious why you believe that white people can't experience racism, William. From the definition it would imply that you think no other race could claim "inherent superior[ity]". I see why you would reject this definition that the majority of society has agreed on because it would make you a dictionary racist.
If you can't tell the difference between a generalization and a universal claim, that could be your problem right there.
Also, a dictionary is not a book on racism. It's a book collating common usage of words. I suspect you don't name a book by actual experts because you've never read one. Maybe you should try that before trying to discuss the topic further.
That would also explain why you're doing the a classic white-fragility routine here, arguing over trivia and playing word games rather than actually grappling with the ongoing harm.
This isn't a "debate". There's no stage, no hosting organization, no moderator, no judges, no rules. This is, at best, a conversation. At best.
I definitely decide how I'm going to spend my time. My goal in having these conversations is to end patriarchy and white supremacy.
Most of the people supporting those things, wittingly or otherwise, will carry their views to their graves. And a good fraction of those people will argue just as long. This is pretty obvious from history. Look at the number of people still today, 150 years later, who are eager to lionize America's pro-slavery traitors, for example.
My aim is not to convince the diehards, because they are not open to learning anything. I'm going to reach the people I can reach, and leave a reasonable record for the members of the audience who are, like I was, willing to change their minds. But I owe exactly zero to randos who are eager to defend race- and gender-based oppression. Which includes the regrettably large number of people who get mad that people are just discussing those problems.
If you think something is owed to them, you go right ahead and have whatever "debate" you think is their due.
Well, nobody writes posts because they're eager to be "wrong", do they?
What active measures are you taking, besides changing hearts and minds on HN, to dismantle the patriarchy and white supremacy? What are you personally doing, say, to promote the work of developers and entrepreneurs that are female and non-white?
Oh, we're comparing resumes? I'll tell you what: you go first.
And as to the first bit, some people are eager to be right, while some are eager to look right. My point is that he's in the latter group, and so is avoiding the substance of the discussion to snipe on minor points.
I was kindly giving you the benefit of the doubt that your activism extends beyond internet flamewars, and presumably the occasional Democratic vote. I mean, if I'd boasted allegiance to a jihad against a Great Satan, I think I'd jump at any chance to boast about my accomplishments.
