Absolutely. That is the meaning of racism. And it is exactly what I am arguing is the meaning of racism. But what some of you here (you included) are using racism to mean is not that. What is up for argument is if naming your dog dingo or telling your coworker to keep his hands to himself (for example) amounts to treating someone as lesser based on their genetic heritage. If I said (as refered to in Gyrate’s song link) that I wished people who immigrated to the US would learn English, that would not be saying that I thought they were lesser due to their genetic heritage, therefore it is not racism. Prejudiced, bigoted, insensitive, a sweeping generalization, etc–all of those are possibilities But it isn’t racism. If I said that immigrants are incapable of learning English because their non-Northwestern European heritage means they weren’t smart enough to learn it, that would be racism.
I think racism and related concepts are much, much thornier and more complicated than these examples.
This is pretty damn close to what I’m saying. If you accept this, then I’m not sure what we actually disagree on.
Pants are pressers of the tool.
Ah, see, I have no tool to oppress. Let’s call it pussy privilege.
And thus the main thrust of our disagreement is about the definition of the concept of “racism”. Which is fine.
As far as I can tell, we only disagree on whether or not I’m one of those people 
That’s nice, but it has nothing to do with what I said or any of the questions I asked.
Didn’t you ask this:
And I say yes, one of you is intrinsically correct. As proven by my example. X is “The moon orbits the earth”
:smack: You have entirely missed the point of what I said, which had to do with conflicting subjective views about whether a statement is offensive or not. The moon’s orbit around the earth is not subjective in any useful way, and I wasn’t inviting people to submit X’s that didn’t address the question.
Since leaving it blank as an exercise for the reader didn’t work, let’s fill in X. Let’s take this famous picture as an example. The man on the left feels that the man on the right’s costume is offensive. The man on the right disagrees, arguing that he is in fact honoring the man on the left’s heritage by dressing thusly.*
Now let’s go back to my questions. Is one of them intrinsically correct? Should someone be able to dress up as an exaggerated ethnic stereotype with impunity even if members of that ethnic group find it staggeringly offensive? What level of proof should we demand of the offended parties to demonstrate that the costume was objectively offensive?
It wasn’t that long ago that dressing up as a generic “Indian chief” was no big deal. These days more people recognize that doing so is a direct insult to actual Native Americans. What has changed? It’s the same act, after all. The man on the right had no ill intent - quite the opposite - in his choice of costume. There’s still no objective metric for offensiveness. The only thing that has changed is the popular consensus on the matter. Which is what I said above.
- I am aware that the man on the right later came to agree with the view of the man on the left and apologized, but it’s a useful example for the purposes of my point.
Yes, one of them is intrinsically correct. If you consider your costume “an exaggerated ethnic stereotype” then you are being offensive, intrinsically.
And yes, people should be able to dress up as an exaggerated ethnic stereotype with impunity, even if members of that ethnic group find it staggeringly offensive.
Again, it’s not that hard. I mean, really. If someone has to put that much thought into whether or not something they want to say or wear is racist, then just don’t say it or wear it if you care about being labeled racist or offensive. If you don’t care, then say and wear away!
What do you mean there?
If you are saying that it should be legal, then I am in agreement with you. The law does not account for bad taste.
If you are saying that they should be free from criticism for that decision, then we will need to part ways on that one.
Yes it should be legal. And of course they should not be free from criticism. How else would I call them the morons that they are?
Then what did you mean here? “people should be able to dress up as an exaggerated ethnic stereotype with impunity”.
I would take that to mean that they should be free from any consequences of their decision, both legal, and social.
Calling them morons would certainly be a consequence to their action.
Well, I admit I don’t have a firm grasp on the definition of the word “impunity” I guess.
Scratch “with impunity” from my statement then.
You can always borrow one. Wear it out, get another.
I’m disgusted by the Evergreen situation but I sure wish people covering it would at least try not to use bitter, vitriolic language. It would go a long way toward making them seem more credible. I had Sr. Weasel listen to the Rubin Report with Bret Weinstein, which he agreed was really eye opening, but he found the other episodes in the podcast less enthralling because of the obvious bias and narrative manipulations of the podcaster. If we are going to address this issue, we need to do it with a modicum of integrity.
One of the ‘we’re just here to have a dialogue and shake hands’ rightist leaders’ (Joey Gibson…and notice my scare quotes) went to Evergreen in the last few days. I think the real intent is to make Antifa look bad and hope Antifa starts a fight. For the most part Antifa didn’t take the bait.
For his effort Joey Gibson and his bunch got shot in the face a lot with silly string and their tires slashed. Not a great plan rightists.
My beef was always the marginalzation that occured in the convos. Had one said, “Honest, I have no ill intent” than that’s a point worth discussing. But I never heard that. What I did hear was:
“God PC has run amuck!”
“Are Vikings insulted??” (The stupidest response i ever heard)
“Notre Dame blah blah blah” (The second stupidest)
“A poll was taken”…yeah, 15 years ago. And it was no where near comprehensive.
Considering that “Antifas” is actually about 10% real assholes, 20% keyboard warriors who never do anything and 70% right wing agitators trying to make Antifas a thing, it isn’t going to happen.