• @flamingarms@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    -61 year ago

    Sure is. But “White” is prejudice at worst, not racism. Racism includes the inherent power dynamics and systemic racism against minorities.

    • @uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      So when it done in average African country with total population 5% of white(definetly a majority, swear on math meth textbook) is ok. Basically racism by non-white people is not a racism and there is nothing racist in this statement.

      I’m not sure if I should mark such absurdity as mere sarcasm.

    • Hello Hotel
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Its about power, completely devoid of racial lines. It matters If you are given the privlage and act apon convincing yourself of lies. It also matters if you chase power at all costs.

      • @flamingarms@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Yes, and racism is also a social hierarchy and systemic structure that utilizes tools of oppression to allow the in-group to have power and control over the out-group. Calling it prejudice alone is not acknowledging the full picture.

        • Hello Hotel
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh my gosh, the closest thing to reasonable and you get a “consult your dictionary” comment.

          • @flamingarms@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Yeah, this thread has been fascinating. It’s the most basic concept and people are wild’n out. My last comment at the bottom of this thing I think will summarize it well for anyone who reads through it all. I think the biggest concern is why people are so resistant to understanding the additional power/control and systemic shit within racism. I use “gravity” as an example, but when it comes to racism, these are people’s lives. And I’d hate to think how invalidating it would make someone feel to hear this “no” and “check the dictionary” shit in a conversation outside of the Internet.

          • @flamingarms@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Lol mate, you’re being willfully obtuse. As you already know, there is knowledge beyond the confines of the dictionary, and the dictionary is merely attempting to summarize a very complex subject. If you’d like to broaden your perspective, you can turn to the research which is where I’m pulling my definition. If you’d like to understand why it’s so important to include those other things I mentioned in the definition, there’s plenty of reading opportunities to explain that.

            • As you already know, there is knowledge beyond the confines of the dictionary

              Yet dictionaries still exist, and their definitions don’t become invalid just because you want to avoid criticism.

              • Hello Hotel
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Ive heard gross iterations by others (even in this thread) of what @flamingarms said, he has a fairly reasonable take in comparison

                  • Hello Hotel
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    He may be wrong, just not tunnel visioned like a lot of other theorys. Its not purely intent to harm nor purely power/ability that defines racism. 2 or more sides of the same coin. Both aspects share the same word.

              • @flamingarms@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                -21 year ago

                The dictionary is not a replacement for the social sciences, friend. It seems like you have a narrative in your head about why I am arguing this point, but I’d like to point out that your argument is currently standing on “but the dictionary though” in the face of decades of research.

                • Social sciences, and dictionaries are two seperate things. No one is arguing that dictionaries replace social sciences, what people are saying is the common definition still stands.

                  • @flamingarms@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    0
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    If you’ll afford me a long comment, I have an example that I think will explain my confusion. If you check the Oxford dictionary, you’ll see it define “gravity” as a force. Let’s say someone says “gravity is a force” in a thread much like this. I and others clarify “well, it presents as a force in some respects, but very much not like one in others.” People respond “No, it’s a force.” I clarify further how that’s not entirely the case. “Check the dictionary.” Yes, but the dictionary is just trying to summarize a very complex subject in physics and is not a replacement for the sciences. “No one is equating the dictionary and the sciences, but people still use the dictionary definition.”

                    I understand that; indeed that’s how this thread formed. What I don’t understand is why, when I say that gravity is not entirely a force, it is met with a rejection of that clarification and nuance. Gravity is not entirely a force; it’s way more complicated than that. Racism is not just prejudice; it’s way more complicated than that. I’m confused why this is such an issue.

              • @flamingarms@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                -11 year ago

                I don’t know who that is; first time talking with them as far as I know. I don’t mind engaging with someone until they seem disingenuous; but yeah, that’s where I’ve reached with that person. A short reply of “check the dictionary” is not the sign of someone wanting actual conversation. Guessing you’ve had a similar run-in with them.