[zorpner]

I always hesitate to post this on HN, because it almost never goes well, but here it is:

Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race (sex/class/etc). It's about power. For this reason alone (let alone all the other good ones), there is no symmetry in these biases (e.g. the false equivalence of misogyny and misandry).

[mcantelon]

>Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race

The popular, and dictionary, definition of "racism" is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races".

[rada]

The definition of "AIDS" is that it's a disease, and yet what causes it is a virus. Your parent has pointed out the source or racism/sexism/classism/etc, not the end result. Identify the source, cure the disease.

[mcantelon]

Sources of racism come from all kinds of things: colonialism, ethnic scapgoating, economic competition between ethnicities, ethno-nationalism, etc. The post I'm replying to seems to suggest it's not possible to be racist towards whites ("For this reason alone ... there is no symmetry in these biases"). I'm merely pointing out that by the popular, and dictionary definition of racism, it's possible. If black youths target a white youth for a beating because he/she is white, for example, it would be reasonably characterized as "racist" even though the racism faced by blacks, systematically, is greater.

[rada]

I think you misunderstand your parent. Here is the full quote:

there is no symmetry in these biases (e.g. the false equivalence of misogyny and misandry)

It does not mean that there is never a case of sexism against men or racism against whites. What it means is that you cannot simply flip mysogyny and misandry, or racism against minorities and racism against majority. One major reason is the power imbalance - you can read more about it online but the simplest example I can offer is that of sexual harassment where the power imbalance is essential to the problem, i.e. a lowly employee asking for a date with their boss is a fundamentally different problem than a powerful boss asking for a date with their employee. Another reason is systemic vs. individual discrimination - again, other people explain it better than I ever could but a very simple example would be that everyone across the board, meaning men and women both, discriminate against equally-qualified resumes with female names on them, evidencing that our whole culture is systemically sexist in one direction.

And if you read carefully what that parent was responding to, it will make even more sense.

[forgottenpass]

I always hesitate to post this on HN, because it almost never goes well

It never goes well because it goes into a corner of academia, takes a relatively new and by no means universally accepted redefinition and decides to not only add that definition to the word "racism" society-wide, but replace the existing definition entirely.

My personal opinion on the terms has gone back and forth so much that I don't even care about this pissing match anymore, but it's become clear to me why people aren't getting on board.

As if redefining instead of just adding a 2nd definition wasn't enough, what it attempts to define is already better known as "institutional racism," a subset of racism (where racism is just racial prejudice). If you don't see a new category being defined, it's hard to see the purpose of splitting these hairs as anything other than to redefine racial-prejudice-minus-power as something without the baggage the term "racism" carries around. It smacks of conversation re-framing through linguistic prescriptivism.

Or, occasionally it is interpreted less charitably. Someone does see a new category being codified, just not the one you want. They see it as a category of below-"racism" racism emerging that gives a pass to expressions of racism from traditionally disadvantaged groups, even in circumstances where the institutional racism isn't at play.

[dragonwriter]

> Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race (sex/class/etc). It's about power.

That's, frankly, bullshit. It about allocating power by race, etc., and is, therefore, necessarily about race (or whatever else defines the -ism in question) and power.

> there is no symmetry in these biases

There is a difference in effect (in a short time window, but see below) between whether the group favored is the currently in-power group or whether its an out-of-power group.

But there is a symmetry in essence. And, furthermore, the long-time-window effect of accepting racism (etc.) from below (or redefining the terms to exclude it) is a reversal in power structure in which the group whose bias has been licensed becomes the power group -- and is unlikely to suddenly renounce the bias that established that position in favor of the formerly-dominant and now subjected group.

[hueving]

Don't even bother trying. The people that post the definition you are replying to either willfully ignore the basic logical flaws of their argument or they have been brainwashed and lack the mental fortitude to actually defend what they are saying. You will not get a a meaningful response.

[vezzy-fnord]

This is a sly redefinition of racism that largely fails to withstand scrutiny: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

[zorpner]

From that link: "It is important to push for the understanding that racism is 'prejudice plus power' and therefore people of color cannot be racist against whites in the United States. People of color can be prejudiced against whites but clearly do not have the power as a group to enforce that prejudice."

That's pretty much exactly the case! Thanks for the great quote.

[teacup50]

That's racist nonsense. Racism is extrapolating a set of unfounded biases across an entire race, which is exactly what you're doing.

[skeg]

So Barack Obama couldn't be racist against a school janitor because the school janitor has more power?

[benihana]

It's official! It's literally not possible to be racist against white men you guys! Tumblr was right all along!