Many Identities of New York Officers’ Killer in a Life of Wrong Turns

A minor nitpick in the grand scheme of all the terribly stupid things wil has said here, but one worth making.

Kinda like how you say this exact same thing to others? Or is this time different again?

I see everyone is so used to Wils bad posting they skipped over the homophobic remarks.

Racism is a power dynamic that uses the notion of a racial hierarchy to reinforce unequal access to power and privilege. Black people can be racist insofar as they can also reinforce the system of race dominance that exists in the US (white supremacy), as seen in numerous examples--they can also simultaneously reinforce racial prejudice while being the targets of it themselves (as we've seen in the discussion of "what about black cops?"). But the notion that black people can be racist against whites is a misunderstanding of how racism works. Certainly black people can be prejudiced or bigoted against white people, but their prejudice carries relatively little social weight in the dominant power dynamic of society at large. Prejudice against black (or other non-white) people helps reinforce white supremacy. Prejudice against white people is at worst a moderate inconvenience for an individual white person. And no, affirmative action doesn't count. Sorry guys.

In the same way, women can hold sexist notions about other women (it happens all the time), but they can't really be sexist against men, because men still benefit from societal privilege in ways that women do not. And no, lazy thinkers, that does not mean every man is more powerful than every woman, so don't start throwing up Nancy Pelosi tweets.

That's one definition. Feel free to use it. But, other people don't use it the same way. That doesn't mean they are wrong.

Many Black people use it differently and do think Black people can be racist against Whites.

Also neither Merriam-Webster nor Oxford English use your definition as the primary one.

Whatever, different definition. Doesn't mean either is right or wrong. It's a word. I know you're not just making up your definition on your own. There's a large group that defines the way you do.

Lol. Here, if I beat someone to death, but I stop before they are actually dead, but they die two minutes later, am I all good? Is there an important distinction there?

I'm looking for examples of "the reverse".

Also looking for the countless times in our history. If you say something you should back it up.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using 2+2 Forums

The opinions on this site never stop amazing me.

I'm perfectly willing to at least entertain the idea that there's a good reason to define racism as the institutional oppression of one race and that a racist is a person who supports that institutional oppression.

But, anyone who claims that that is the RIGHT definition of the word racism, is very clearly saying that the word is neither defined by the dictionary nor by how most people use it.

If you're referring to the racism definition discussion 1) not sure how that'd amaze you since it's been talked about before and 2) it's clearly not just people around here as they're linking to other sites.

That's basically what I was saying here, micro, that there are multiple different definitions of racism. Institutional racism seems to be what people refer to when they claim black people can't be racist. Or at least, what they describe as racism seems to match up with the definition of institutional racism pretty well.

That's basically true, but it's a bit like saying that after you agree on the definition of racism there is consensus on the definition of racism.

Yeah, I mean when I see the word racism I don't think institutional racism in the way TurnProphet describes it. If you want me to think about institutional racism, say institutional racism.

I think that's the problem, though. One set of people is seeing "racism" and thinking it only means having nasty thoughts about people with a certain skin color, and another set of people is seeing "racism" as a broader power dynamic.

"Racism" should always refer to a larger oppressive system (and calling it "institutional racism" doesn't help much because it's not always quite so explicit or bound up with formal institutions--otherwise we wouldn't get treated to round after round of JAQing off from Jibninjas, wil, Strike-3, etc). Racism of the "individual" variety should just be called prejudice or bigotry so we don't confuse the two.

wil straight giving up all pretense at this point

Come on man. No there isn't. If there were, you'd be able to come up with a dictionary that included that definition. What you mean is that there is a tiny minority of academic elites who are trying to redefine it that way.

Using any definition of "racism" other than its plain meaning is an attempt to redefine the word for political ends and should be resisted.

Take this, from Five Percenter/Nation of Islam ideology:

Anyone want to explain to me what an assertion that a race was literally "bred to be a race of devils" is if it isn't racism? "Prejudice" or "bigotry" aren't going to get the job done here.

Also, pretty amusing that you linked that Dyson guy to explain this "definition" of racism, because he speaks super pretentiously and only occasionally appears to know what any of the words he's using mean. Here's a partial transcript:

A prize for anyone who can tell me what the **** that first sentence means. If you're wondering, "peripatetic" means "travelling from place to place, in particular working or based in various places for relatively short periods", i.e. "itinerant" is probably the best synonym. I had to look the word up, but hey, at least I didn't try to use it in a sentence without having any idea what it means.

Most obviously, egregiously wrong is his use of "cantankerous". For one thing, the definition is "ill-tempered, cranky, surly, crabby", which is probably not what he had in mind, but worse yet, it's an adjective which is applied to people (or animals etc by analogy). The way he used it makes as much sense as "This Dyson guy has a lot of irritable opinions".

In an attempt to find a transcript of the video I Googled "michael eric dyson cantankerous" and found this isn't the first time he's abused the word:

Yeah, he has absolutely no idea what it means. How has nobody pointed this out to him?

Anyway, yeah, lol Michael Eric Dyson and lol listening to him try to define words.

Chris,

Whatever. My inclination is to agree with you on that, but it's not a big deal to me. I'm not specifically sympathetic to the academic interest in expanding the definition of racism, but in the name of it not being a big deal, not being at all threatening, and making an allowance for one of the most persecuted groups in history, I'm certainly willing to say, ok, Black Americans can be prejudiced or bigoted but not racist.

That said, I'm certainly not going to fault someone for following a dictionary definition.

Again, w/e. I don't think it's a big deal as long as people understand what each other are saying. I know from my point of view, I didn't understand what people meant when they said racist when I started reading this forum.

As far as Michael Eric Dyson goes, it's not an easy thing to google. I was pretty happy just to find an academic saying Blacks can't be racist.

You can't describe that as "expanding" the definition of racism, it's narrowing it. Generally on this forum we use a broad definition of racism (which includes, for instance, unconscious behaviour which might bias people against a race). As long as they don't expand beyond the term having any meaning any more (a pet hate of mine is the meaningless "social justice"), expanded definitions are fine because we can then use qualifiers to explain exactly what we mean. Institutional racism, structural racism, explicit racism, whatever.

What I'm not OK with is people co-opting a perfectly good word for their own purposes and in the process leaving us without a word to describe, say, an ideology that says that the white race was bred to be devils. Why does Dyson want to redefine "racism" to mean only racism by the powerful? Because that's the only racism he's interested in discussing. I mean I broadly agree with him that structural/institutional racism is a more important topic than what a few Nation of Islam cultists claim to believe, but trying to redefine the word is the enemy of good argument and clear expression.

Your beef is with Turnprophet who seems to think you are selfevidently wrong and also working against the greater good of society by persisting.

Yeah. I just quoted microbet because he was being an ENABLER and because the Dyson video made me facepalm. But I recognise the main proponent of not made up definitions here is turnprophet.

I lol'd but seriously I hope this doesn't happen as I believe Wil is an overall boon to these threads. He's a perfect case study and the genuine article because I don't believe he's just playacting the part of an open minded person on the internet, realizing it's a good look.

I do believe believe he lives in an integrated part of philly, has black friends, considers them the "good ones" and doesn't see anything wrong with that belief, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Despite posting evidence I believe he does actually consider himself a paragon of colorblind virtue and is so lacking the self-awareness that would even allow a degree of cognitive dissonance to be introduced.

He's not the only one, and these are the people responsible for the state of race relations right now, but he is the one granting us semi-intimate access to the inner workings.

^^^

o trust me it's not

The next time you are in Philadelphia, let me know when you're here. You can have an avid discussion with my "good black friends", calling me a racist in a public place, and we'll see what happens after that.

The problem is Stokely Carmichael coined the term "institutional racism" specifically to separate it from racism as "having nasty thoughts about (and actions towards) people with a certain skin color" and Eldridge Cleaver referred to himself as a reformed racist. It's not an ivory tower designation from a white-american intellectual elite, and from a pure linguistic standpoint it makes more sense imo.

Also, regardless of how a person feels about the black panthers and the black power movement, there's no denying Carmichael was an intellectual heavyweight, so I think Dyson is playing really fast and loose by being so derisive about the concept.

Still, I'd have to agree with you that NOW these are how the terms have evolved, but the concept remains the same. Black people can be "racist" towards white people et al in a microcosm but can't be "racist" in an institutional sense.

To make it more complicated, "systemic racism" has became a popular term to describe "sub"institutional yet pervasive racism. To use the craziest analogy that just popped into my head: consider the US made racist thought and action a crime, and had mind-reading technology to implement this statute. The DMV starts using mind-reading jammers to racially discriminate against black motorists on a "sub"institutional level, creating a pocket of "systemic racism".

Holy **** wil. Holy ****.

What's gonna happen after that? We're gonna have a polite yet rigorous philosophical debate at a coffee shop?

Wait no... are you saying they're gonna beat me up? Is that the implication, because black people are savage beasts? You can't have it both ways, either these blacks are the good ones or the bad ghetto ratchet ones.

Also, and I'm kinda hating that the professional gambler in me is winning out over the scientist, but I will totally take this bet:

Earlier itt you were dropping the 90% figure and now you're emboldened and embiggened with what sounds like 100%, so draw up some terms and let's bet.


p.s. Also one of my best friends lives in Philly so there's a strong chance I'll be out there within 6 months. You can maybe pay me in person, and if the rigorous philosophical discussion turns into disorderly conduct this friend is a lawyer, so I'll have that base covered.