Tumblr: Ask Me Anything

[Smurfette Principle]

Just to tack onto that: a single movement is defined as a group of people with clear goals. The Tumblr SJA crowd is not a conglomerate, and there is a great deal of infighting (see: extremist otherkin activists vs. trans activists, anti-poverty people vs. hardcore vegans). Therefore painting anyone as a SJW is kind of silly because that can mean anything from thinking that we should do something about prison reform to thinking that the words "penis" and "vagina" don't do enough to encompass the full range of genitalia that is possible for intersex people to thinking that no one needs to or should drink milk. The only blanket statement you can make about the SJA scene is that it's diverse and comprised of people who feel strongly about something.

[Fpqxz]

So... in other words, institutional racism, a systematic form of racism marked by a power differential, is best distinguished from the more general concept of racism, in which one holds that another race is intrinsically inferior, by referring to institutional racism as just racism. Got it. Yes, everything is nice and clear now.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  By insisting that institutional racism is the ONLY form of racism, you have completely muddied the waters and denied the existence of other forms of racism.  This is intellectually dishonest equivocation on your part.

And then there's this (my own emphasis added)...

Regardless of whether it's accepted in some academic circles, I've yet to see a compelling argument for why it's necessary to alter the definition of racism (and "power plus prejudice" is a fairly recent alteration of the original and still widely-accepted definition of the word). We already have terms to differentiate between its various forms, (internalized, systematic, institutional/ingrained, casual, etc.), so the "there needs to be a different term!" argument really doesn't wash.

And, quite frankly, I might be a little less skeptical of this definition if it wasn't used almost exclusively as a red herring when someone is called out on their bigotry and hypocrisy.

Edit: Also, I do realize language changes over time, but we're talking about a forced redefinition here -- and one that has some pretty drastic implications, at that.

...which I agree with 100%.  Fucking bang-on, Mlle Antéchrist.   

[Witchyjoshy]

Just as a note, since this should be obvious, but the SJW thread in Flame and Burn is not to be taken as a representative sample of every social justice advocate on tumblr.

Just like FSTDT's main page is not meant to be taken as a representative sample of everyone who is religious ever.

[Distind]

The way I've had it explained to me is as follows: racism needs to be defined the way it is to more aptly demonstrate the power differences: the fact that it is a structure rather than mere belief.

Which blows my mind. Follow me here for a second, but haven't these people attempted to redefine racism in a rather blatantly racist way? Or does using 'power' as a euphamism for white exempt them somehow?

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

Just as a note, since this should be obvious, but the SJW thread in Flame and Burn is not to be taken as a representative sample of every social justice advocate on tumblr.

Just like FSTDT's main page is not meant to be taken as a representative sample of everyone who is religious ever.

Exactly. It's really no different than the "Things people say on Facebook", "Certain things about fandoms that annoy you", etc. threads. We're mocking the worst elements of the Tumblr SJ community, not every single SJ blogger on Tumblr, much less the planet.

[Witchyjoshy]

Just as a note, since this should be obvious, but the SJW thread in Flame and Burn is not to be taken as a representative sample of every social justice advocate on tumblr.

Just like FSTDT's main page is not meant to be taken as a representative sample of everyone who is religious ever.

Exactly. It's really no different than the "Things people say on Facebook", "Certain things about fandoms that annoy you", etc. threads. We're mocking the worst elements of the Tumblr SJ community, not every single SJ blogger on Tumblr, much less the planet.

Right.

My point is, don't confuse the insane jack-off use of the talk of institutional racism vs. the proper use of it.

The people who use it as a defense for being prejudiced against white people is bad.  This doesn't really apply to the people who are talking about.

As for why certain circles would simply shorten institutional racism to just racism, this actually makes good sense to me.

For one thing, the common lingo of racism is simply just talking about prejudice based on skin color.  The definition of the common use of racism is basically redundant when there are other words that can express the same sentiment.  (Racist towards black people and prejudiced towards black people mean the same thing).  There's also bigoted.

Therefore, since common use basically means 'prejudiced', then 'institutional racism' can simply be shortened to 'racism' for better efficient discussion.

The problem is when the idiots try to force this contextual use of the word into contexts where it doesn't belong.  These people are the ones that hijack "you can't be (institutionally) racist against (dominant skin color)" into being "You can't be prejudiced against (dominant skin color)" and think that this gives them free reign to act like bigoted fuckwits.

[Art Vandelay]

For one thing, the common lingo of racism is simply just talking about prejudice based on skin color.  The definition of the common use of racism is basically redundant when there are other words that can express the same sentiment.  (Racist towards black people and prejudiced towards black people mean the same thing).  There's also bigoted.

Therefore, since common use basically means 'prejudiced', then 'institutional racism' can simply be shortened to 'racism' for better efficient discussion.

What if you're trying to discuss something other than institutional racism? Then you have to say "prejudice against [whichever race applies]" rather than simply racist. That's basically three extra words you have to say (or a minimum of four more syllables) when discussing any form of racism but institutional for a gain of removing one word (or five syllables) for just one form of racism.

And what if, in the same discussion, the matter of other forms of prejudice come up? Then suddenly you can no longer assume "prejudice=racial prejudice" and therefore have to qualify the kind of prejudice you're referring to every single time you use the word.

Though of course, this is all besides the point, since the Tumblr social justice crowd wants to redefine racism as institutional racism in all cases, including common usage, including the (supposed) sane majority.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

My point is, don't confuse the insane jack-off use of the talk of institutional racism vs. the proper use of it.

Thing is, some of us disagree with the "proper" use of it as well, and happen to feel that treating "racism" as an umbrella term for all racial prejudice and inequality is preferable for a variety of reasons (not confusing the crap out of people, not implying that incidental racism is a non-issue, etc.)

[Witchyjoshy]

Though of course, this is all besides the point, since the Tumblr social justice crowd wants to redefine racism as institutional racism in all cases, including common usage, including the (supposed) sane majority.

Again, the SJW thread is not representative of the social justice advocates as a whole.  So stop acting like it is.

My point is, don't confuse the insane jack-off use of the talk of institutional racism vs. the proper use of it.

Thing is, some of us disagree with the "proper" use of it as well, and happen to feel that treating "racism" is an umbrella term for all racial prejudice and inequality is preferable for a variety of reasons (not confusing the crap out of people, not implying that incidental racism is a non-issue, etc.)

Disagreement is perfectly okay.  Holding your own opinion is perfectly okay.

Being a dick about it is not okay.  Dismissing something because you decided beforehand that it was bullshit is also not okay.  Not saying you're doing this (you've actually been quite reasonable) but just stating something.

Hell, I'm not sure I agree with it.  But I think I understand why they do it.  That's all I'm asking from others.

[Art Vandelay]

Though of course, this is all besides the point, since the Tumblr social justice crowd wants to redefine racism as institutional racism in all cases, including common usage, including the (supposed) sane majority.

Again, the SJW thread is not representative of the social justice advocates as a whole.  So stop acting like it is.

And where, pray tell, did I ever say that thread is my source? If you check the first page of this thread, you'll see that both Smurfette and Wykked stated quite plainly that it's the general consensus in the internet social justice scene.

[Witchyjoshy]

Though of course, this is all besides the point, since the Tumblr social justice crowd wants to redefine racism as institutional racism in all cases, including common usage, including the (supposed) sane majority.

Again, the SJW thread is not representative of the social justice advocates as a whole.  So stop acting like it is.

And where, pray tell, did I ever say that thread is my source? If you check the first page of this thread, you'll see that both Smurfette and Wykked stated quite plainly that it's the general consensus in the internet social justice scene.

No, that's a case of you reading what you want to read.  Of course, you more or less proved this when you skimmed past "Western society" in the very same post you were touting as proof of your perception.

They were explaining what it was for the context of social justice advocate discussions.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Art Vandelay]

No, that's a case of you reading what you want to read.  Of course, you more or less proved this when you skimmed past "Western society" in the very same post you were touting as proof of your perception.

They were explaining what it was for the context of social justice advocate discussions.  Nothing more, nothing less.

You want to find a quote that says they accept the common definition of racism everywhere but their social justice blogs? Assuming you know what you're talking about, there should be several in this very thread.

[Witchyjoshy]

No, that's a case of you reading what you want to read.  Of course, you more or less proved this when you skimmed past "Western society" in the very same post you were touting as proof of your perception.

They were explaining what it was for the context of social justice advocate discussions.  Nothing more, nothing less.

You want to find a quote that says they accept the common definition of racism everywhere but their social justice blogs? Assuming you know what you're talking about, there should be several in this very thread.

I've actually talked with them.  You know, made an effort to understand where they're coming from.

For that matter, the fact that your "proof" is based off of an erroneous interpretation of a post means that the burden of proof is still on you.

This topic is not your personal shooting grounds.  The topic is outside of Flame and Burn to encourage discussion and discourage verbal poaching.

Now then, can we get back to discussing the topic at hand, without being a dick about it?

[Art Vandelay]

No, that's a case of you reading what you want to read.  Of course, you more or less proved this when you skimmed past "Western society" in the very same post you were touting as proof of your perception.

They were explaining what it was for the context of social justice advocate discussions.  Nothing more, nothing less.

You want to find a quote that says they accept the common definition of racism everywhere but their social justice blogs? Assuming you know what you're talking about, there should be several in this very thread.

I've actually talked with them.  You know, made an effort to understand where they're coming from.

In other words, "no". Though I feel I should mention that just because the whole "racism = power + prejudice" idea applies to other races when they dominate society, it does not make it any less flawed, or does it mean that it's in face not the widely accepted definition in the internet social justice crowd.

[Fpqxz]

For one thing, the common lingo of racism is simply just talking about prejudice based on skin color.  The definition of the common use of racism is basically redundant when there are other words that can express the same sentiment.  (Racist towards black people and prejudiced towards black people mean the same thing).  There's also bigoted.

Therefore, since common use basically means 'prejudiced', then 'institutional racism' can simply be shortened to 'racism' for better efficient discussion.

What if you're trying to discuss something other than institutional racism? Then you have to say "prejudice against [whichever race applies]" rather than simply racist. That's basically three extra words you have to say (or a minimum of four more syllables) when discussing any form of racism but institutional for a gain of removing one word (or five syllables) for just one form of racism.

And what if, in the same discussion, the matter of other forms of prejudice come up? Then suddenly you can no longer assume "prejudice=racial prejudice" and therefore have to qualify the kind of prejudice you're referring to every single time you use the word.

Though of course, this is all besides the point, since the Tumblr social justice crowd wants to redefine racism as institutional racism in all cases, including common usage, including the (supposed) sane majority.

See, this is why I posted that Chomsky link before.

Chomsky was right on the money about how postmodernism does absolutely nothing to bring clarity or greater understanding to any subject, but only serves to obscure it (and in the process, secure careers for certain corrupt academics).

Critical race theory, as a postmodernism-based theory, does exactly this.

You can go ahead and call that a fallacy, and throw around all the fancy Law Latin terms you can think of, but it doesn't change the fact that it is true.