[wpietri]

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.

And if you haven't read any, I'd suggest you start by reading DiAngelo's, which is material to your behavior here. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07638ZFN1/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

[dragonwriter]

> 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).

[wpietri]

[citation needed]

[charliesharding]

> 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.

[wpietri]

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.

[pinkfoot]

I envy you: it must be nice to participate in a debate and get to be the one who makes the rules up as you go.

[wpietri]

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.

[pinkfoot]

> …will carry their views to their graves

Ever consider then that you might be wrong?

No, of course not.

[wpietri]

Of course I did. That's why there's a "most" in there. Which you then ignored, because you yourself are very eager to be "right" here.