What the definition says at face value, as I quoted in my first post, is this:
Emphasis added. The statement is very clearly meant to refer to whites within American society.
Why indeed? That’s one of the reasons I don’t favor this societal interpretation of the word. As Ludovic pointed out, using a commonly recognized term like “racism”, which is already widely understood to refer to individual opinions, to convey a different interpretation about societies rather than individuals is a recipe for confusion and misunderstanding.
I’m surprised to learn that there is anyone in this thread that went to college but has never been exposed to the concept of racism described by Ms. Butler. I think that it is not uncommon in academic, especially sociological discussions of race. Every class I’ve been in that has discussed racism in any depth has discussed this racism-as-white-privilege concept.
And if we’re going to associate the KKK with conservatism and this concept of racism with liberalism (which I think is silly), I for one would rather be part of a movement associated with a flawed, overinclusive definition of racism than a movement associated with a deep hatred of another race. YMMV.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
I’m surprised to learn that there is anyone in this thread that went to college but has never been exposed to the concept of racism described by Ms. Butler. I think that it is not uncommon in academic, especially sociological discussions of race. Every class I’ve been in that has discussed racism in any depth has discussed this racism-as-white-privilege concept.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been exposed to it plenty. I just think it’s bullshit.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I can’t see anything in there that says she’s a political liberal. It says she’s “warm and compassionate.” I guess that means “liberal” to you.
When come back, bring cite.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t be a dick.
If being a liberal were a crime, and we could agree on the precise definitions, I would agree that the record here is insufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that she’s a liberal.
But in the context of a complaint of this nature on a message board, your insistance that the evidence isn’t enough for us to proceed on that assumption is absolutely dickish.
However, in an effort to cater to your extremely ridiculous refusal to accept this, I have called World Trust Educational Services, Inc, and asked the question: “Would Dr. Butler characterize herself as politically liberal?”
Predictably, the person answering the phone responded, “No comment.” However, she did take my contact information and promised to ask Dr. Butler to return my call.
I am very certain that, if Dr. Butler were to take the “Political Compass” questionnaire, she would land comfortably in the socially liberal section of the page. You know it as well, and your insistence on a cite in this instance is stupid. But if Dr. Butler chooses to address my question in a substantive way when (if) she returns my call, I will pass on the information.
You racist.
(I, of course, by Dr. Butler’s definition, cannot possibly be a racist, given my heritage. Woo hoo!)
Emphasis added. The statement is very clearly meant to refer to whites within American society.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with the definition and the way she’s using it is that if “racisim” is a societal or institutional characteristic, it doesn’t really apply to individuals at all.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
(I, of course, by Dr. Butler’s definition, cannot possibly be a racist, given my heritage. Woo hoo!)
[/QUOTE]
Have you any European heritage? Any at all? How about your kids? Whatever there is is racist as a mammajamma.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
(I, of course, by Dr. Butler’s definition, cannot possibly be a racist, given my heritage. Woo hoo!)
[/QUOTE]
Have you any European heritage? Any at all? How about your kids? Whatever there is is racist as a mammajamma.
Right. As Contrapuntal and I were saying, if racism is interpreted as a characteristic of a society, then what does it even mean for an individual to be “racist”? “Racist” in this context seems to mean nothing more than “racially advantaged”, as opposed to non-white members of the society who are “racially disadvantaged”.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
IOW: “I know this is an irresponsible overgeneralization about liberals, just as bad as the irresponsible overgeneralizations about conservatives generated by some prejudiced leftists, but I’m just going to go with it anyway as an act of retaliation.”
[/QUOTE]
But he’s a moderate. He’s told us so on numerous occasions. Therefore anything he says and does is, by definition, fair and balanced and without partisanship.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
But he’s a moderate. He’s told us so on numerous occasions. Therefore anything he says and does is, by definition, fair and balanced and without partisanship.
[/QUOTE]
Care to comment on the topic of the thread, or are you just behind on your snark quota for October and trying to get one last pointless jab in?
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Care to comment on the topic of the thread, or are you just behind on your snark quota for October and trying to get one last pointless jab in?
[/QUOTE]
Why should he bother? The OP is without merit. You, on the other hand are a complete troll. And a stupid one at that.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Except that she was hired by UD to train “staff and Whole New World facilitators”. Link to UD website. In light of that, I would think that the university does bear responsibility for the garbage she spouted, and a it could reasonably be inferred that her training does represent the position of the university itself.
[/QUOTE]
The purpose of my post was neither to absolve nor confer upon the university of any responsibility for her views, but merely to correct the false implication in your OP that the quote was from official university materials.
As I said, I think she sounds like a nutjob, and if I were an RA in that dorm I’d be pretty pissed if I had to attend diversity training with her. But an outside speaker hired by a dorm is pretty far from an official mouthpiece for the university, and your rant would be less stupid if you gave up pretending that she is.
As I said, I think she sounds like a nutjob, and if I were an RA in that dorm I’d be pretty pissed if I had to attend diversity training with her. But an outside speaker hired by a dorm is pretty far from an official mouthpiece for the university, and your rant would be less stupid if you gave up pretending that she is.
[/QUOTE]
Wait a second. I don’t understand what you are saying. UD hired her to train their RAs in how to apply their “Whole New World” diversity program for resident students. How is this NOT what I said it is? I mean, if she was just a guest lecturer at UD, sure, I see your point and would agree, but that’s not what happened here (as I understand it. If I’m wrong do you have a link?)
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Wait a second. I don’t understand what you are saying. UD hired her to train their RAs in how to apply their “Whole New World” diversity program for resident students. How is this NOT what I said it is? I mean, if she was just a guest lecturer at UD, sure, I see your point and would agree, but that’s not what happened here (as I understand it. If I’m wrong do you have a link?)
[/QUOTE]
I’m saying that quoting something from Butler’s handout as being from “U of D’s indoctrination guidelines” is inaccurate. Universities hire outside speakers to educate students and faculty all the time. Said speakers’ handouts are not automatically official university guidelines merely because the speakers are getting paid by the university.