Somebody has been reading the FFXIV community comments regarding lalafell.
At least now we know what your butt thinks of this silly thread. It’s unimpressed. 
I am beginning to think that this is another effort to broaden the term “racism” to the point that it renders the idea ineffective.
I think the way it’s meant is not actual racism, as I’ve noticed “that’s racist” used in a sort of tongue-in-cheek way by the younger set, whenever anyone indicates a bias toward some one or thing.
I don’t have a great example on hand, but my husband says it periodically, usually in a faux-offended tone, and I’m guessing he got it from his younger clients.
I agree that the general trend over the last 80 years has been stagnant wages with creeping/exploding inflation but one of the few exceptions was the advent of the internet/home PC’s and that one time we had a global pandemic and a bunch of people died. Technological advances and global pandemics sorta shake things up; otherwise real wages have/will continue to plummet.
My Gen-Z son says I’m a racist when I call one of the cats an idiot.
(Damn it, @Miller - I was going to post that!)
I totally forgot about that! That show is a gem.
Necessary but not sufficient.
Racism is the institutional suppression of a minority by the majority.
I was literally giving the dictionary definition, not a philosophical statement about my opinion on the subject. Your opinion isn’t a great counter to that.
What you are describing is not “racism”, but a term called “the tyranny of the majority”. Racism is one motivation for such a thing, however.
Errant nonsense.
You’re thinking of institutional racism. It is not the only kind of racism that exists.
By your definition, it is only possible for the majority to be racist, which is obviously untrue since minorities can be racist against other minority groups or against their own group (internalized racism) or even against the majority group.
Let me pose a thought experiment. Suppose someone made something they described as an effigy of a Black person. They say things like “this is my n-word doll. I’m going to tie a noose around its neck and lynch it. You can’t say I’m being racist because I haven’t painted it black, and it’s not a real person anyway.”
To which my response would be: actually, you’re being screamingly racist. The fact that it’s an inanimate doll isn’t any kind of loophole. In fact it’s kind of worse because you’re showing me how you might behave toward someone if you knew there was no chance of pushback at all.
Same thing as a bro who violently punches a hole in the wall to demonstrate his anger. His demonstration of violent anger toward a wall is a HUGE red flag about his character. It doesn’t matter at all that the wall can’t feel it.
Same thing about calling an AI a “fucking clanker” or whatever. This cannot be seen as anything but a parody of inventing a bigoted slur and getting away with using it because the target can’t push back. What that says about you is completely irrelevant to whatever the target is, or whether it has feelings, or whether it has a “race”.
No that’s completely utterly wrong on every level . In neither of those examples are the inanimate objects the victim of racism, or threats, or slurs of any kind. Yes those are violent, racist threatening acts, that involve inanimate objects, but there is no sense in which the inanimate object are the ones being subjected to racism or being threatened. Those objects are purely coincidental to the racism and the threats.
Are you suggesting that racism can only exist in the form of acts with live immediate proximate victims, not in attitudes that foster amorphous hostile environment sorts of behaviors?
Because that’s the only way I can make any sense of your very eccentric position. Please, show me what I’ve missed.
Of course not the proximity of the victims has nothing to with it. I’m saying the victim is the group of actual human beings that’s being victimized, whether they are in the room at the time or the nearest member of the group is thousands of miles away. They are the people who the racist is being racist to.
The inanimate object that may be involved is completely coincidental. No one is being racist to that inanimate object (be it an AI, a African doll, or a kippah) because it’s a blindingly obvious statement that you cannot be racist “to* an inanimate object.
Not only that, to equate actual racism against real human beings to holding negative opinions about inanimate objects is an offensive racist statement. It’s equating people of different races to inanimate objects.
Can we split the difference and just say it’s probably not good form to pretend to be racist toward inanimate objects because it’s not very nice to parody racism?
Or even more succinctly: bigotry is a bad habit.
You’re moving the goalposts here. Nobody every said anything about whether the inanimate objects are victims of racism. That’s new phrasing introduced by you.
The question is can you be racist toward an inanimate object. By distinguishing that these objects were not the victim of racism, you’re not denying racism occurred. You’re simply saying that it doesn’t matter, you can do what you want because they’re not human beings. Which not coincidentally is the exact permission structure that racists use to justify what they do. “Group XYZ may look and act like human beings, but they’re not, so go nuts, treat them however you want.”
And that’s exactly what I argue. You absolutely can be racist toward AI. That statement is so obviously true that it’s not even interesting to debate. The interesting debate is over whether it’s wrong to be racist toward AI, and why.
I mean, yes. Racists are bad because they treat actual human beings like they’re not human beings. Treating things that aren’t human like they aren’t human is a)fine and b) not what racism is.
I don’t kick people but I do kick footballs. I fully admit that the reason I feel morally relaxed about kicking footballs is because I don’t consider them human. Does this make me racist against footballs?