You can't be racist towards whites or sexist towards men.

[Ranallo Jenner]

Jessi Danger

The Sky Does Not Bow

Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

When those degrees have the same seriousness and legitimacy as chemistry or calculus I'll consider taking their opinion seriously.

Same way as racism and sexism are terms that everyone can use as a vague way of saying they've been discriminated against, chemistry and calculus are just degrees that aren't any different than degrees in graphic design or liberal arts. They all share the same level of seriousness and legitimacy.

[The Sky Does Not Bow]

Mr Sapporo Beer Man

The Sky Does Not Bow

Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

/appealtoauthorityfallacy

Nah, an appeal to authority would be if i said "this man is a cop so he is more correct about particle physics than you." If you defer authority to someone who is an expert in the thing you are talking about it's perfectly valid.

[Jessi Danger]

madstobias

Jessi Danger

madstobias

Jessi Danger

Yoshpet

The Sky Does Not Bow

yeah, you're right.

Well, you would be. If you weren't wrong.

Insist harder. It makes your ideas sound well thought out and verifiable.

Thou shalt never disagree with a social justice sally, you will instantly be labeled an -ist, -phobic, or part of some -ism. emotion_dealwithit

What's wrong with having an educationally-structured and logically-sound interpretation of racism and sexism? It can help make those two terms less vague and less abused/exploited.

Because it doesn't sound logical. It sounds essentially like arguing one groups bad behavior is the absolutely worst thing, while the other is not really that bad. Essentially an individuals experiences become better or worse depending on where they rank on an artificial hierarchy of oppression Olympics.

Arguing only X group can be racist, or only Y gender can be sexist essentially makes attacks, even with aid and social support, from those apparently "good," groups seem like less of a problem.

From the perspective of say a white kid beat up by a group of black kids, saying what he experienced isn't racism because Tim Wise thinks it should count as such, does not serve any reasonable cause except make the white kid resent said people and despise the black kids all the more since it seems society is giving them a pass, but if he and his friends were to do the same thing it would be considered infinitely worse in the greater public consciousness. More over that isn't the definition of Racism or Sexism, that is a handful of academics with a political agenda that is served by their definition but it is not the accepted one.

While I agree with everything you said, I still feel that the sociological definitions of racism and sexism still have their place. In some meaningful instances, ones that take place on a far larger and more meaningful scale than isolated instances of hate crimes and random acts of discrimination, racism and sexism are terms that some argue should more gravity due to things like the civil rights movement and womens rights movement.

In that era I doubt terms like racism and sexism would have had the seriousness that they held had they been used in excess by groups of rich white male politicians, lawmakers, and business owners who held their own meaningless movements alongside the profound movements of civil rights and womens rights.

Today, what I actually see are people who use the lax definitions for racism and sexism in order to encourage the so-called Oppression Olympics because it allows anyone to jump on the bandwagon. Racism and sexism have almost become petty and trivial things because everyone wants in on the suffering.

I don't think they have any place outside of social justice warriors on tumblr and reddit. Taking things to the extreme we could point out that every constituency group misuses and abuses social power for their own advantage. How many fun social advantages do I enjoy because of my gender? Quiet a few actually. It still sounds like self serving bullshit to argue one persons actions are worse then another persons simply because of their skin coloration or chromosome combinations.

I don't consider legislatively any movements particularly profound. Granting me the right to vote was a natural outgrowth of the movements for citizen participation started by those people you describe as "rich white male's" as if othering them and making them some sort of cipher for whats wrong with the world or somehow my eternal enemy will help sway me.

What good does your specific preferred definition do to the over all helping of people?

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

madstobias

Pseudo-Onkelos

madstobias

Pseudo-Onkelos

madstobias

The sociological definition for racism does not necessarily promote segregation.

It might as well, though.

The sociological definition of racism might not as well promote segregation simply because some argue that it should distinguish an oppressed group from a privileged group. Depending on what you mean by saying it promote segregation, it's little different than how the terms rich and poor distinguish the rich from the poor. That doesn't mean the way we classify things has to encourage some type of negative system of separating people. It just conveys how terms are used to distinguish things when they're explained and expressed.

If everyone was rich in the U.S., where in the U.S. are the poor?

The poor are in Africa when the rich and powerful United States purchases the continent as a territory.

I could have simply said where are the poor if everyone on Earth was rich, but I was pretty sure I was specific.

[Camera Stellata]

The Sky Does Not Bow

Camera Stellata

The Sky Does Not Bow

Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

Racism is hatred or intolerance of others because of their race. I don't even need a degree to tell you that. I've got a dictionary.

it's also a system of oppression. white people cannot be oppressed.

It could be expressed through oppression, but I see no rational reason to limit it to that. If a gang of black or asian individuals decide to carry out a violent crime against a white person, because of their hatred of white people, then that's a racist attack, regardless of any wider power imbalance.

[Jessi Danger]

madstobias

Jessi Danger

The Sky Does Not Bow

Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

When those degrees have the same seriousness and legitimacy as chemistry or calculus I'll consider taking their opinion seriously.

Same way as racism and sexism are terms that everyone can use as a vague way of saying they've been discriminated against, chemistry and calculus are just degrees that aren't any different than degrees in graphic design or liberal arts. They all share the same level of seriousness and legitimacy.

Racism and sexism have fairly clearly defined words actually. I don't see how they are vague in any meaningful way. And no, those other degrees are far more useful to the world. Graphic design is nice, but will it get you to the moon? Will it create medicine? Will it engineer the next great technology? Probably not.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Jessi Danger

madstobias

Jessi Danger

The Sky Does Not Bow

Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

When those degrees have the same seriousness and legitimacy as chemistry or calculus I'll consider taking their opinion seriously.

Same way as racism and sexism are terms that everyone can use as a vague way of saying they've been discriminated against, chemistry and calculus are just degrees that aren't any different than degrees in graphic design or liberal arts. They all share the same level of seriousness and legitimacy.

Racism and sexism have fairly clearly defined words actually. I don't see how they are vague in any meaningful way. And no, those other degrees are far more useful to the world. Graphic design is nice, but will it get you to the moon? Will it create medicine? Will it engineer the next great technology? Probably not.

I like the hard sciences more than the soft.

[Jessi Danger]

The Sky Does Not Bow

Jessi Danger

The Sky Does Not Bow

Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

When those degrees have the same seriousness and legitimacy as chemistry or calculus I'll consider taking their opinion seriously.

expand on this. make a case.

How about I just say its a matter of fact? Its about all you do.

STEM is something we can falsify, test, and prove or disprove. I can fairly convincingly argue testable certainty the rate at which a bowling ball will fall from the top of 5 story building.

Sociology isn't going to grant me that level of testability or replicable results.

[Jessi Danger]

Pseudo-Onkelos

Jessi Danger

madstobias

Jessi Danger

The Sky Does Not Bow

Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

When those degrees have the same seriousness and legitimacy as chemistry or calculus I'll consider taking their opinion seriously.

Same way as racism and sexism are terms that everyone can use as a vague way of saying they've been discriminated against, chemistry and calculus are just degrees that aren't any different than degrees in graphic design or liberal arts. They all share the same level of seriousness and legitimacy.

Racism and sexism have fairly clearly defined words actually. I don't see how they are vague in any meaningful way. And no, those other degrees are far more useful to the world. Graphic design is nice, but will it get you to the moon? Will it create medicine? Will it engineer the next great technology? Probably not.

I like the hard sciences more than the soft.

I'm going for a major in Geology myself. The natural sciences are less convoluted bullshit IMHO.

[Ranallo Jenner]

Jessi Danger

madstobias

Jessi Danger

The Sky Does Not Bow

Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

When those degrees have the same seriousness and legitimacy as chemistry or calculus I'll consider taking their opinion seriously.

Same way as racism and sexism are terms that everyone can use as a vague way of saying they've been discriminated against, chemistry and calculus are just degrees that aren't any different than degrees in graphic design or liberal arts. They all share the same level of seriousness and legitimacy.

Racism and sexism have fairly clearly defined words actually. I don't see how they are vague in any meaningful way. And no, those other degrees are far more useful to the world. Graphic design is nice, but will it get you to the moon? Will it create medicine? Will it engineer the next great technology? Probably not.

Racism and sexism are terms that are clearly defined yet debated upon. But in a realm where things aren't distinguished from each other, I would say that yes, a degree in graphic design will take me to the moon, will create medicine, and will engineer the next great technology. Racism is racism, sexism is sexism, and a degree is a degree.

In terms of the overall helping of people, the sociological definitions and application of sexism and racism helps highlight racial and gender disparity so that those things can hopefully be expressed and corrected without other groups hijacking the terms and draining them of their seriousness. Those terms help to distinguish one group from another. I mean, one instance of racism and sexism is the same as any other. Some black person called me a cracker today, so I forced him into slavery. That’s equal racism.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Jessi Danger

Pseudo-Onkelos

Jessi Danger

madstobias

Jessi Danger

The Sky Does Not Bow

Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

When those degrees have the same seriousness and legitimacy as chemistry or calculus I'll consider taking their opinion seriously.

Same way as racism and sexism are terms that everyone can use as a vague way of saying they've been discriminated against, chemistry and calculus are just degrees that aren't any different than degrees in graphic design or liberal arts. They all share the same level of seriousness and legitimacy.

Racism and sexism have fairly clearly defined words actually. I don't see how they are vague in any meaningful way. And no, those other degrees are far more useful to the world. Graphic design is nice, but will it get you to the moon? Will it create medicine? Will it engineer the next great technology? Probably not.

I like the hard sciences more than the soft.

I'm going for a major in Geology myself. The natural sciences are less convoluted bullshit IMHO.

Do you know if volcanology is related to geology?

[Ranallo Jenner]

Pseudo-Onkelos

madstobias

Pseudo-Onkelos

madstobias

Pseudo-Onkelos

madstobias

The sociological definition for racism does not necessarily promote segregation.

It might as well, though.

The sociological definition of racism might not as well promote segregation simply because some argue that it should distinguish an oppressed group from a privileged group. Depending on what you mean by saying it promote segregation, it's little different than how the terms rich and poor distinguish the rich from the poor. That doesn't mean the way we classify things has to encourage some type of negative system of separating people. It just conveys how terms are used to distinguish things when they're explained and expressed.

If everyone was rich in the U.S., where in the U.S. are the poor?

The poor are in Africa when the rich and powerful United States purchases the continent as a territory.

I could have simply said where are the poor if everyone on Earth was rich, but I was pretty sure I was specific.

The poor would be the native savages on Mars who the rich Earthlings would want to bring civility and culture to since they aren't rich and sophisticated like the earthlings.

[Jessi Danger]

Pseudo-Onkelos

Jessi Danger

Pseudo-Onkelos

Jessi Danger

madstobias

Same way as racism and sexism are terms that everyone can use as a vague way of saying they've been discriminated against, chemistry and calculus are just degrees that aren't any different than degrees in graphic design or liberal arts. They all share the same level of seriousness and legitimacy.

Racism and sexism have fairly clearly defined words actually. I don't see how they are vague in any meaningful way. And no, those other degrees are far more useful to the world. Graphic design is nice, but will it get you to the moon? Will it create medicine? Will it engineer the next great technology? Probably not.

I like the hard sciences more than the soft.

I'm going for a major in Geology myself. The natural sciences are less convoluted bullshit IMHO.

Do you know if volcanology is related to geology?

It falls under the branch of geologic science.

[Jessi Danger]

madstobias

Jessi Danger

madstobias

Jessi Danger

The Sky Does Not Bow

Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

When those degrees have the same seriousness and legitimacy as chemistry or calculus I'll consider taking their opinion seriously.

Same way as racism and sexism are terms that everyone can use as a vague way of saying they've been discriminated against, chemistry and calculus are just degrees that aren't any different than degrees in graphic design or liberal arts. They all share the same level of seriousness and legitimacy.

Racism and sexism have fairly clearly defined words actually. I don't see how they are vague in any meaningful way. And no, those other degrees are far more useful to the world. Graphic design is nice, but will it get you to the moon? Will it create medicine? Will it engineer the next great technology? Probably not.

Racism and sexism are terms that are clearly defined yet debated upon. But in a realm where things aren't distinguished from each other, I would say that yes, a degree in graphic design will take me to the moon, will create medicine, and will engineer the next great technology. Racism is racism, sexism is sexism, and a degree is a degree.

In terms of the overall helping of people, the sociological definitions and application of sexism and racism helps highlight racial and gender disparity so that those things can hopefully be expressed and corrected without other groups hijacking the terms and draining them of their seriousness. Those terms help to distinguish one group from another. I mean, one instance of racism and sexism is the same as any other. Some black person called me a cracker today, so I forced him into slavery. That’s equal racism.

I see, so you want nuance where it suites you but don't like it where it doesn't suite you. Well I say you take your masters in sociology and go submit a resume to be a chemical engineer.

It feels like you are draining the term of its seriousness by robbing of it its universal "badness," and transforming it into yet another tool for some political praxis. If a group of white kids beat up a black kid we would rightly call it a racist attack, or we would if they did it because the kid they beat up is black. However if a bunch of black kids attack a white kid, because he is a white kid, it doesn't get the much more terrible definition of "racist attack," heck if we buy into Tim Wise, its even understandable and slightly acceptable.

Hence why I don't buy into that line of thinking. You are in effect bastardizing the word and making it less of a general word for something bad and in essence making it look like merely a tool to claim moral superiority in all things and allow the bad actions of one group to be seen as less terrible. So if women advocates (As one Swedish professor did) having all men spend a year in jail just because, it isn't a sexist idea. But if a man suggests the same thing, a male professor from Sweden it would be considered a sexist idea via the magical property of selectively choosing what actions, ideas and hatreds are really bad based on who does them. If racism and sexism is bad, then ALL RACISM AND SEXISM IS BAD. Advocating that attitudes, actions and ideas should not be called racism or sexism (Which in a sense makes them sound less severe) because of who said them to whom is just a weasly self serving cop out.

[Jessi Danger]

Keltoi Samurai

Jessi Danger

It sounds like some self serving bullshit to me. What is next? murder isn't murder depending on who pulls the trigger and who ends up dead?

if the man pulling the trigger wears a badge, and the man taking the bullet is on the run from police after skipping bail on multiple counts of pimping out a 13 year old, who fled from cops, jumped a subway turnstile and instigated a shootout with the pursuing officers, then it's not murder, and your analogy falls short.

if the person who pulled the trigger is a woman, and the man getting shot is her sleeping ex-husband, then it's called "battered wives syndrome" and is not murder, so the analogy falls short again.

so, yeah, it's entirely feasible that it's not murder depending on who pulls the trigger and why.