Mr.Samsa wrote:

babel wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

The analogy highlights the fact that the academic use of the word and the layman use of the word can differ. They can both be accurate in certain contexts and one can be more applicable in other contexts.

True, but it doesn't mean that one example is no longer racism because you are changing to another context.

Yes and no... It would still be racism in the layman definition but it wouldn't in the academic sense. Since the context is hugely important to the academic definition then changing to a different context would change whether it is termed "racism" or "racial prejudice".

babel wrote:Likewise, a cold blooded murder and a murder in the heat of catching somebody raping your wife are different depending on the context, but murder in both cases.

Yes, but killing someone in cold blood and killing someone in cold blood when government sanctioned are not both murder. The first is murder and the second is an act of war.

Let me rephrase that:
The change of context doesn't change the impact on the victim. In my example, the victim is dead, in both cases, regardless of context.

Mr.Samsa wrote:I've pointed out that significant differences occur in the two cases and that it makes sense to distinguish between the two - are you denying that the differences exist or that it's worthwhile to distinguish between the differences?

Well, you've certainly pointed out that, given certain context, separating the two cases can make sense in order to understand specifics concerning such things as underlying causes and outcomes but, as with all those silly attempts to sub-classify atheists into little boxes, it doesn't impact the simple fact that racism is what it is, and not anything else. It is, specifically, and in ALL cases, 'maltreatment based on race, or the perception thereof'. Yes, there are differences in how specific instances of racism can be perceived to operate, but that doesn't make any of them any less racist. To suggest that one side needs to be privileged in some way over the other, thus making racism uni-directional, is asinine. I will concede that there may be situations in which it's helpful to treat them separately, but it doesn't change what racism is.

The problem is that if you want to stick to the history of the word and its original meaning

There's nothing remotely historical about my treatment. This is what it means NOW.

then we're stuck with the idea that it refers to claims about superiority and inferiority of races. Surely you'd disagree with that simplistic account of racism?

That's only a single aspect of racism, so yes, I would disagree with such a simplistic statement, because racism doesn't only deal in inferiority or superiority, but covers the entire gamut of treatment (and in fact, I'd go as far as to say this is true whether that treatment is positive or negative) based on race or the perception thereof.

You'd have to give reasons (like I've done above) as to what conditions and contexts could give us reason to distinguish between types of rotting badger. Can you think of any? If you can't then I don't see how it's relevant here.

I did give a reason, in the form of an example (comically sidelined by Ani).

babel wrote:
Let me rephrase that:
The change of context doesn't change the impact on the victim. In my example, the victim is dead, in both cases, regardless of context.

That wouldn't be an apt analogy then as the source of the prejudice changes the effect of the action in the case of racism.

hackenslash wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I've pointed out that significant differences occur in the two cases and that it makes sense to distinguish between the two - are you denying that the differences exist or that it's worthwhile to distinguish between the differences?

Well, you've certainly pointed out that, given certain context, separating the two cases can make sense in order to understand specifics concerning such things as underlying causes and outcomes but, as with all those silly attempts to sub-classify atheists into little boxes, it doesn't impact the simple fact that racism is what it is, and not anything else. It is, specifically, and in ALL cases, 'maltreatment based on race, or the perception thereof'. Yes, there are differences in how specific instances of racism can be perceived to operate, but that doesn't make any of them any less racist. To suggest that one side needs to be privileged in some way over the other, thus making racism uni-directional, is asinine. I will concede that there may be situations in which it's helpful to treat them separately, but it doesn't change what racism is.

I still don't really see what your reasoning is. Yes, the classical definition of racism would treat all those things as racism but it has since been revised. Why should we prefer the classical definition?

hackenslash wrote:

The problem is that if you want to stick to the history of the word and its original meaning

There's nothing remotely historical about my treatment. This is what it means NOW.

In laymen discussions yes, but it was replaced in academia decades ago because it was found insufficient. Your position depends on us accepting the classical definition in order to reject the revision, which makes no sense.

hackenslash wrote:

then we're stuck with the idea that it refers to claims about superiority and inferiority of races. Surely you'd disagree with that simplistic account of racism?

That's only a single aspect of racism, so yes, I would disagree with such a simplistic statement, because racism doesn't only deal in inferiority or superiority, but covers the entire gamut of treatment (and in fact, I'd go as far as to say this is true whether that treatment is positive or negative) based on race or the perception thereof.

But the point is that when the term was revised to extend it beyond that original definition people then could have made the same argument you are - that is, they reject it as "asinine" because it differs from a definition they accept.

hackenslash wrote:

You'd have to give reasons (like I've done above) as to what conditions and contexts could give us reason to distinguish between types of rotting badger. Can you think of any? If you can't then I don't see how it's relevant here.

I did give a reason, in the form of an example (comically sidelined by Ani).

You didn't give any reasons as to how two cases of rotting badgers could differ. For your analogy to make sense you need to show that a significant difference exists but that this difference doesn't justify the use of different terms, like babel's murder example.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

babel wrote:
Let me rephrase that:
The change of context doesn't change the impact on the victim. In my example, the victim is dead, in both cases, regardless of context.

That wouldn't be an apt analogy then as the source of the prejudice changes the effect of the action in the case of racism.

I don't understand this, I'm afraid.

Mr.Samsa wrote:I still don't really see what your reasoning is. Yes, the classical definition of racism would treat all those things as racism but it has since been revised.

When did that happen, and who was responsible for revising it? Is this official? Can I see somewhere where it says 'thou shalt no longer use a perfectly serviceable definition'? Do I sense an argumentum ad verecundiam in our near future?

Why should we prefer the classical definition?

Because it's perfectly rigorous, and no good reason has been given to think it otherwise.

In laymen discussions yes, but it was replaced in academia decades ago because it was found insufficient.

Ah, so it was an argumentum ad verecundiam. Why should we prefer the definition given by 'academia' (who is this? What does it denote?)

Your position depends on us accepting the classical definition in order to reject the revision, which makes no sense.

Errr, no. This depends on your justification for any alleged revision, as well as detailing why this wasn't communicated to the world at large. I have no need to justify a usage that, rather than being historical, as you contend, has been in continuous usage since its coining.

But the point is that when the term was revised to extend it beyond that original definition people then could have made the same argument you are - that is, they reject it as "asinine" because it differs from a definition they accept.

I haven't seen any evidence of this alleged revision, nor the justification given for it, so why the hell should I accept it?

You didn't give any reasons as to how two cases of rotting badgers could differ.

Of course I didn't, for precisely the same reason that I reject that two cases of racism differ in their being racist. They may differ in content, and in circumstance, in precisely the same way that a rotting badger with only its head exposed to the elements will rot differently to a badger with its arse in the air. They're both still rotten fucking badgers.

For your analogy to make sense you need to show that a significant difference exists but that this difference doesn't justify the use of different terms, like babel's murder example.

Well, I'd contend that state-sanctioned murder is still murder, because there can be no lawful killing. Maybe that's just me being ideological, though, so I won't press the point. In any event, I've given an example above by extending the badger analogy in a manner perfectly conversant with this alleged separation by academia.

I reject your redefinition outright.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes a very powerful point about the racism of having lower expectations of various groups, for example for religious reasons.

babel wrote:
I don't understand this, I'm afraid.

The effect of "racist" comments changes depending on the cultural power behind the person saying it. Saying it to someone with power might hurt their feelings or offend them but only when it's directed at minorities will it affect things like test scores, hiring rates, attitudes of the group that's present, etc. This is one of the main findings in prejudice norm theory and things like stereotype that.

hackenslash wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I still don't really see what your reasoning is. Yes, the classical definition of racism would treat all those things as racism but it has since been revised.

When did that happen, and who was responsible for revising it? Is this official? Can I see somewhere where it says 'thou shalt no longer use a perfectly serviceable definition'? Do I sense an argumentum ad verecundiam in our near future?

It was done in the relevant fields that study this topic, mostly sociology, and it was around the 70s and 80s when the shift occurred.

And nobody is being denied using it in other ways, you know that's not how science works. Arguments have been made (as summarized in this thread) as to why the revision was necessary and so far only a few fringe views have challenged it. It might still be wrong but you'd need evidence and reasoning to back you up.

hackenslash wrote:

Why should we prefer the classical definition?

Because it's perfectly rigorous, and no good reason has been given to think it otherwise.

I've given you reasons and you've presented no rebuttal.

hackenslash wrote:

In laymen discussions yes, but it was replaced in academia decades ago because it was found insufficient.

Ah, so it was an argumentum ad verecundiam. Why should we prefer the definition given by 'academia' (who is this? What does it denote?)

There is no fallacy there for a couple of reasons. Firstly I'm not claiming that it's right because academics think so, I'm pointing out that the arguments behind it being insufficient caused it to be dropped and that's something that needs to be addressed. Secondly, appeals to authority only apply to invalid appeals and there is nothing invalid there as they are relevant experts.

hackenslash wrote:

Your position depends on us accepting the classical definition in order to reject the revision, which makes no sense.

Errr, no. This depends on your justification for any alleged revision, as well as detailing why this wasn't communicated to the world at large. I have no need to justify a usage that, rather than being historical, as you contend, has been in continuous usage since its coining.

I'm not sure what your argument is supposed to be here - why would laymen being ignorant of technical definitions affect the validity of those definitions?

Would you apply the same argument to atheism, where the fairly recent revision of it meaning 'lack of belief in god' hasn't been communicated to the public who largely think it means the rejection of God?

hackenslash wrote:

But the point is that when the term was revised to extend it beyond that original definition people then could have made the same argument you are - that is, they reject it as "asinine" because it differs from a definition they accept.

I haven't seen any evidence of this alleged revision, nor the justification given for it, so why the hell should I accept it?

If you look up practically any sociology textbook you'll find it. If you still can't find any then when I'm next at a computer I'll link you to some.

hackenslash wrote:

You didn't give any reasons as to how two cases of rotting badgers could differ.

Of course I didn't, for precisely the same reason that I reject that two cases of racism differ in their being racist. They may differ in content, and in circumstance, in precisely the same way that a rotting badger with only its head exposed to the elements will rot differently to a badger with its arse in the air. They're both still rotten fucking badgers.

Then it's irrelevant to this discussion since I've given reasons as to why the contexts require a more accurate definition.

hackenslash wrote:

For your analogy to make sense you need to show that a significant difference exists but that this difference doesn't justify the use of different terms, like babel's murder example.

Well, I'd contend that state-sanctioned murder is still murder, because there can be no lawful killing. Maybe that's just me being ideological, though, so I won't press the point. In any event, I've given an example above by extending the badger analogy in a manner perfectly conversant with this alleged separation by academia.

I reject your redefinition outright.

Your position seems to hinge on the fact that you just happen to personally like that definition and I don't see how any more discussion can be had if you're unwilling to address the points I've made

There's a decent overview of the issue here.

Fairly recent? It has always meant lack of belief in gods!

Mr.Samsa wrote:There's a decent overview of the issue here.

Someone on internet I have never heard of??

What happened to social construction of reality, marxism, weber, institutionalisation, books like soulside?

Your author does not give a summary of different positions and examples - like effect of arab slave trade, is it possible to define various empires as good or bad, what of the politics of those claiming others are racist, anti-semitism...

Mr.Samsa wrote:

babel wrote:
I don't understand this, I'm afraid.

The effect of "racist" comments changes depending on the cultural power behind the person saying it. Saying it to someone with power might hurt their feelings or offend them but only when it's directed at minorities will it affect things like test scores, hiring rates, attitudes of the group that's present, etc. This is one of the main findings in prejudice norm theory and things like stereotype that.

Thanks for the clarification.

I understand that, on a society level, both racist statements carry a different weight. Black people probably have hurdles that white people don't need to face.
My issue with this is that if a person on the bottom end of the social scale is at the receiving end of a racial slur, it doesn't matter to him/her if he/she is black, asian, hispanic, white or something else. In his/her situation, they are certainly not in power, cultural or otherwise. Even well off people can be on the receiving end of racial abuse even if they do not take active part of the cultural power of their particular skin hue.
I can't help thinking that a white person living in a carton box on the side of the road would object if you tried to tell him he had white privilege, since it doesn't give him (personally) a benefit.

because there can be no lawful killing.

I would be very cautious about that!

What is death? Brain or heart? What is lawful? Is abortion under 12 weeks killing? Day after pills? Switching off a heart lung machine?

Not giving food or water to someone?

What of killing yourself? Is that never lawful?

Imagination Theory wrote:By the by, when I first heard "you can't be racist to whites" I was like "what the fuck, of course you can!" I thought it was really stupid. This is a good way of putting it "racism is when intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal." So yeah, you can't be racist to white people by that definition or heterophobic or sexist to men or cisphobic, etc.

This is what we call Institutional Racism.

It's still possible to have other forms of racism, in fact the argument for not limiting racism to such a simplistic, one-dimensional definition is precisely because it ignores other forms.

Clive Durdle wrote:Fairly recent? It has always meant lack of belief in gods!

The shift in standard definitions only came about in the last few decades. Even some dictionaries today don't recognise it.

Clive Durdle wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:There's a decent overview of the issue here.

Someone on internet I have never heard of??

The "some person" is a sociologist who specialises in race theory and the article was published in "Ethnic and Racial Studies". I mean, you can disagree with it but it's blatantly disingenuous to dismiss it as "some guy on the internet".

Clive Durdle wrote:What happened to social construction of reality, marxism, weber, institutionalisation, books like soulside?

What does that have to do with anything?

Clive Durdle wrote:Your author does not give a summary of different positions and examples - like effect of arab slave trade, is it possible to define various empires as good or bad, what of the politics of those claiming others are racist, anti-semitism...

He describes the history of the term racism, why there was a shift, and the advantages and disadvantages of various conceptions.

babel wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

The effect of "racist" comments changes depending on the cultural power behind the person saying it. Saying it to someone with power might hurt their feelings or offend them but only when it's directed at minorities will it affect things like test scores, hiring rates, attitudes of the group that's present, etc. This is one of the main findings in prejudice norm theory and things like stereotype that.

Thanks for the clarification.

I understand that, on a society level, both racist statements carry a different weight. Black people probably have hurdles that white people don't need to face.
My issue with this is that if a person on the bottom end of the social scale is at the receiving end of a racial slur, it doesn't matter to him/her if he/she is black, asian, hispanic, white or something else. In his/her situation, they are certainly not in power, cultural or otherwise. Even well off people can be on the receiving end of racial abuse even if they do not take active part of the cultural power of their particular skin hue.

Agreed, on a personal level the effects can be quite similar but that psychological understanding of racism has generally be viewed as quite insufficient for how the issue of racism has been understood in sociology. Essentially the argument is that it makes more sense to view those kinds of personal interactions as "racial prejudice" as they are distinct from the societal and institutional effects of racism.

babel wrote:I can't help thinking that a white person living in a carton box on the side of the road would object if you tried to tell him he had white privilege, since it doesn't give him (personally) a benefit.

But it most likely would. The part people misunderstand is that they think "privilege" means your life is awesome and nothing goes wrong. In reality it just means that, on the balance of things, you will have access to more things and face less challenges than other people who lack your privilege. So a white person living on the street will face quite a bit of discrimination due to his lack of economic privilege, in the same way a black homeless guy would, but the white person could be less likely to be arrested (as least less likely to be arrested for something similar to "driving whilst black"), and people giving them money would be less likely to think he's just using it for drugs and alcohol, etc.

In other words, the negative racial associations we have don't just suddenly disappear when people become homeless. They get added on to it and it makes it just a bit more shitty for that person.

HomerJay wrote:

Imagination Theory wrote:By the by, when I first heard "you can't be racist to whites" I was like "what the fuck, of course you can!" I thought it was really stupid. This is a good way of putting it "racism is when intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal." So yeah, you can't be racist to white people by that definition or heterophobic or sexist to men or cisphobic, etc.

This is what we call Institutional Racism.

It's still possible to have other forms of racism, in fact the argument for not limiting racism to such a simplistic, one-dimensional definition is precisely because it ignores other forms.

Institutional racism would only apply to the first part of IT's suggestion there (the "government laws" bit), and not to the rest. The argument for including some mention of "power" or "hierarchy" in the definition of racism has nothing to do with institutional racism as it's a much broader discussion than that.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

HomerJay wrote:

Imagination Theory wrote:By the by, when I first heard "you can't be racist to whites" I was like "what the fuck, of course you can!" I thought it was really stupid. This is a good way of putting it "racism is when intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal." So yeah, you can't be racist to white people by that definition or heterophobic or sexist to men or cisphobic, etc.

This is what we call Institutional Racism.

It's still possible to have other forms of racism, in fact the argument for not limiting racism to such a simplistic, one-dimensional definition is precisely because it ignores other forms.

Institutional racism would only apply to the first part of IT's suggestion there (the "government laws" bit), and not to the rest.

No, look it up.

HomerJay wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

hackenslash wrote:But both racism.

In the layman definition, sure. But in rigorous academic study they are distinguished because it's more accurate, for their purposes, to do so. In a similar way to saying that the evolution of a dog and the evolution of a business philosophy are both "evolution" but if you're talking biology then there's a reason to distinguish the academic definition of evolution from the broader layman definition.

There's a political decision here as well as a lack of consensus, it's a tawdry appeal to authority to claim this represents some form of rigour.

Mr.Samsa wrote:There's a decent overview of the issue here.

From the link

Today, then, the absence of a clear "common sense" understanding of what racism means has become a significant obstacle to efforts aimed at challenging it. As usual there are different interpretations -- different racial projects -- in conflict with one another over the very meaning and structure of racism. It is common to find the view, especially among whites (but also among nonwhites), that we must somehow get "beyond" race in order to overcome racism. For example, I often hear in my classes comments such as "I don't care if someone is black, white, green or purple; a person's just a person to me...," etc. This implies that racism is equivalent to color- consciousness and consequently nonracism must be a lack of color- consciousness. We should recognize that this type of idea, however naive, is a true product of the civil rights era, notably the movement's early, "liberal" years.

On the other hand, I hear from other students (from my black and brown students particularly, but by no means only from them), that racism is a "system of power." This idea implies that only whites have power, and thus only they can be racists. We should also recognize the origins of this idea, which exhibits a different but no less dangerous naivete -- for it is highly problematic to assert that racially-defined minorities are powerless in the contemporary U.S.

I guess we should all remember to read the link before we post it.

Mr.Samsa wrote:It was done in the relevant fields that study this topic, mostly sociology, and it was around the 70s and 80s when the shift occurred.

And nobody is being denied using it in other ways, you know that's not how science works. Arguments have been made (as summarized in this thread) as to why the revision was necessary and so far only a few fringe views have challenged it. It might still be wrong but you'd need evidence and reasoning to back you up.

I don't recall any citations. I may have missed them, but I'll be happy to give them a look.

I've given you reasons and you've presented no rebuttal.

I haven't seen anything that I'd call a good reason for redefining a perfectly serviceable word.

There is no fallacy there for a couple of reasons. Firstly I'm not claiming that it's right because academics think so, I'm pointing out that the arguments behind it being insufficient caused it to be dropped and that's something that needs to be addressed.

I look forward to the citations.

Secondly, appeals to authority only apply to invalid appeals and there is nothing invalid there as they are relevant experts.

Err, no. The appeal to authority is what makes it invalid. And experts in what? Definitions?

I'm not sure what your argument is supposed to be here - why would laymen being ignorant of technical definitions affect the validity of those definitions?

I've yet to be convinced that they are valid, which is pretty much the point. See, the way definitions really work in the sciences is to remove ambiguity. The definition I've given contains none.

Would you apply the same argument to atheism, where the fairly recent revision of it meaning 'lack of belief in god' hasn't been communicated to the public who largely think it means the rejection of God?

That's not a recent revision, it's pretty much always had that definition. Indeed, the first people to whom the word was actually applied were theists (christians, actually). In any event, the definition I employ for atheism applies because it defines atheism. It fulfils the obligations of sufficiency and necessity. I can't see that in your treatment of racism which, as far as I can see, introduces ambiguity and fucks rigour up the arse.

If you look up practically any sociology textbook you'll find it. If you still can't find any then when I'm next at a computer I'll link you to some.

Well, since the argumentum ad googleityourselfum is the laziest argument, I'll kindly await your citations.

Then it's irrelevant to this discussion since I've given reasons as to why the contexts require a more accurate definition.

Lovely way to ignore the argument, which demonstrated the relevance.

Your position seems to hinge on the fact that you just happen to personally like that definition and I don't see how any more discussion can be had if you're unwilling to address the points I've made

No, my position hinges on the fact that the definition was perfectly and completely rigorous as it was, and I see absolutely no reason for it to be redefined, not least because that's the way it's used, and always has been.

Note: Reading the Winant link now.

OK, read that article, and I'm not sure I see where it supports you. It's dealing with governmental approaches to defeating racism and, in that context, I can see some useful distinctions, but I don't see how it defeats the original definition I gave. What you call a technical definition is a technical definition in a very specific, societal context, but doesn't apply to the attitudes and behaviours of individuals.

Consider your case not made. Got anything else?

HomerJay wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Institutional racism would only apply to the first part of IT's suggestion there (the "government laws" bit), and not to the rest.

No, look it up.

I have done and I did again but I can't find any definition of institutional racism which includes racism outside of institutions. Can you link me?

HomerJay wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:There's a decent overview of the issue here.

From the link

Today, then, the absence of a clear "common sense" understanding of what racism means has become a significant obstacle to efforts aimed at challenging it. As usual there are different interpretations -- different racial projects -- in conflict with one another over the very meaning and structure of racism. It is common to find the view, especially among whites (but also among nonwhites), that we must somehow get "beyond" race in order to overcome racism. For example, I often hear in my classes comments such as "I don't care if someone is black, white, green or purple; a person's just a person to me...," etc. This implies that racism is equivalent to color- consciousness and consequently nonracism must be a lack of color- consciousness. We should recognize that this type of idea, however naive, is a true product of the civil rights era, notably the movement's early, "liberal" years.

On the other hand, I hear from other students (from my black and brown students particularly, but by no means only from them), that racism is a "system of power." This idea implies that only whites have power, and thus only they can be racists. We should also recognize the origins of this idea, which exhibits a different but no less dangerous naivete -- for it is highly problematic to assert that racially-defined minorities are powerless in the contemporary U.S.

I guess we should all remember to read the link before we post it.

It is indeed a reminder, as you should have kept reading.

In order to identify a social project as racist using the criterion I have proposed here, one must demonstrate a link between essentializing representations of race and hierarchical social structures. Such a link might be revealed in efforts to protect dominant interests, framed in racial terms, from democratizing racial initiatives. For example: changing to at-large voting systems when minority voters threaten to achieve significant representation. But such a link might also consist of efforts simply to reverse the roles of racially dominant and racially subordinate. In melanin theories of racial superiority (Welsing 1991), for example, or in the racial ontology of the Nation of Islam with its mad scientist Dr. Yacub, we see racist projects which have a black provenance. Racism is not necessarily white, though in the nature of things, it is more often so. It inheres in those political projects that link racial essentialism and racial hierarchy, wherever and however that link is forged.

which is consistent with what I've argued here.

hackenslash wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:It was done in the relevant fields that study this topic, mostly sociology, and it was around the 70s and 80s when the shift occurred.

And nobody is being denied using it in other ways, you know that's not how science works. Arguments have been made (as summarized in this thread) as to why the revision was necessary and so far only a few fringe views have challenged it. It might still be wrong but you'd need evidence and reasoning to back you up.

I don't recall any citations. I may have missed them, but I'll be happy to give them a look.

No part of that claim really requires citations though, as I've given the reasons for the change in definition and you haven't addressed them at all.

hackenslash wrote:

I've given you reasons and you've presented no rebuttal.

I haven't seen anything that I'd call a good reason for redefining a perfectly serviceable word.

Whether the reasons I've given are "good" or not depends entirely on your rebuttals, of which there are currently none. So even if they are "bad" reasons, they are better than the no reason that you've given.

hackenslash wrote:

There is no fallacy there for a couple of reasons. Firstly I'm not claiming that it's right because academics think so, I'm pointing out that the arguments behind it being insufficient caused it to be dropped and that's something that needs to be addressed.

I look forward to the citations.

I've linked to one just before your post here.

hackenslash wrote:

Secondly, appeals to authority only apply to invalid appeals and there is nothing invalid there as they are relevant experts.

Err, no. The appeal to authority is what makes it invalid. And experts in what? Definitions?

Not at all, argument from authority is only fallacious when it is a misuse of that authority. Appeals to authority are a common and necessary part of any discussion, especially when discussing the consensus of a field. It only becomes fallacious when the authority is speaking beyond their expertise, is demonstrably biased in some way, or the name is used to dismiss evidence with no further argument. None of which occurred.

It's a commonly misunderstood fallacy, like "ad hominem" which is often misinterpreted as meaning "insult" or "personal attack", but there's a decent overview of the fallacy here.

And they are experts in race theory, of course.

hackenslash wrote:

I'm not sure what your argument is supposed to be here - why would laymen being ignorant of technical definitions affect the validity of those definitions?

I've yet to be convinced that they are valid, which is pretty much the point. See, the way definitions really work in the sciences is to remove ambiguity. The definition I've given contains none.

I'm not saying that they are absolutely valid but if you are saying that laymen being ignorant of technical definitions affects their validity, in means that it questions or harms the validity in some way (e.g. it might demonstrate that it has no validity). I'm saying that I don't understand how laymen being ignorant is an argument against it at all.

And exactly, the definition presented removes ambiguity which is why it's preferred.

hackenslash wrote:

Would you apply the same argument to atheism, where the fairly recent revision of it meaning 'lack of belief in god' hasn't been communicated to the public who largely think it means the rejection of God?

That's not a recent revision, it's pretty much always had that definition. Indeed, the first people to whom the word was actually applied were theists (christians, actually). In any event, the definition I employ for atheism applies because it defines atheism.

"Always had that definition" is a bit of a misrepresentation of the facts. Etymologically it can be understood to refer to that but it's certainly not how most people have understood it throughout history and hasn't been the dominant definition.

hackenslash wrote:It fulfils the obligations of sufficiency and necessity. I can't see that in your treatment of racism which, as far as I can see, introduces ambiguity and fucks rigour up the arse.

Great, if you can present an argument or some kind of reasoning for that assertion I'll happily try to help understand where our disagreement is coming from.

hackenslash wrote:

If you look up practically any sociology textbook you'll find it. If you still can't find any then when I'm next at a computer I'll link you to some.

Well, since the argumentum ad googleityourselfum is the laziest argument, I'll kindly await your citations.

Jesus christ, this is a discussion not a fucking interrogation. I told you I was on my phone and it'd take you 2 seconds to find it. Even though I was on my phone I still took the time and effort to link you to a relevant paper. A discussion requires a little bit of give and take, and if you'll truly interested in holding an accurate position then you shouldn't be waiting around for someone else to type in anything like 'sociology racism definition' and give you the results.

Here you go:

Handbook of the Sociology of Racial and Ethnic Relations

hackenslash wrote:

Then it's irrelevant to this discussion since I've given reasons as to why the contexts require a more accurate definition.

Lovely way to ignore the argument, which demonstrated the relevance.

You didn't present any argument! I presented the case of racism and explained in detail how there are significant differences that require the terminology to be distinguished. You disagreed and said that even though there are significant differences in the two related phenomena, we should just call them the same thing. Your "reasoning" for this is that a rotting badger is still a rotting badger. What the fuck does that even mean?

Look, if you can give an example of two rotting badgers differing in extreme and significant ways but still not requiring different terms, then we can move forward. Assuming that you can do so, I'll reply by pointing out that just because differences in one area don't require a change in terminology doesn't mean that that applies universally to all cases of significant differences in phenomena.

hackenslash wrote:

Your position seems to hinge on the fact that you just happen to personally like that definition and I don't see how any more discussion can be had if you're unwilling to address the points I've made

No, my position hinges on the fact that the definition was perfectly and completely rigorous as it was, and I see absolutely no reason for it to be redefined, not least because that's the way it's used, and always has been.

And I gave reasons as to why it wasn't rigorous at all, and so far you have failed to address them. I don't care if you think I'm wrong and maybe I am, but you have to understand that this discussion isn't going to go anywhere until you present some kind of reasoning for your claim. If you keep asserting that you disagree then we can firmly establish that you disagree but that doesn't help us figure out what's actually true and what position we should take.

hackenslash wrote:OK, read that article, and I'm not sure I see where it supports you. It's dealing with governmental approaches to defeating racism and, in that context, I can see some useful distinctions, but I don't see how it defeats the original definition I gave. What you call a technical definition is a technical definition in a very specific, societal context, but doesn't apply to the attitudes and behaviours of individuals.

Consider your case not made. Got anything else?

This is my position:

Today, a racial project can be defined as racist if it creates or reproduces hierarchical social structures based on essentialized racial categories. This approach recognizes the importance of locating racism within a fluid and contested history of racially based social structures and discourses. It allows us to recognize that there can be no timeless and absolute standard for what constitutes racism, because social structures undergo reform (and reaction) and discourses are always subject to rearticulation. This definition therefore does not invest the concept of racism with any permanent content, but instead sees racism as a property of certain political projects that link the representation and organization of race -- that engage in the "work" of racial formation. Such an approach focuses on the "work" essentialism does for domination, and the "need" domination displays to essentialize the subordinated.

And the author argues against the definition you present in a number of clear ways. If you disagree, you're going to have to start presenting some reasoning because this discussion isn't going to go anywhere with your fingers in your ears.