Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

Talk:Prejudice plus power

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Example of institutional racism[edit]

One of the premier examples of institutional racism at the highest levels of the US government is the case of Colin Powell. Powell served at the elbow of President Ronald Reagan as National Security Adviser. To many white boys, this would have been the pinnacle of their career. Powell however had amitions to become Secretary of State, following the tradition of Henry Kissinger and George Marshall. When Papa Bush was elected, Powell was booted out of the White House and shipped across town to the Pentagon as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; to any whiteboy this would be deemed a demotion, but because he was black and competative, Powell suffered the indignity while whites marvelled at his devotion and loyalty. Had he been white, he probably would have refused the position rather than endure the snarkiness of his peers. Eventually he was rewarded with Secretary of State for his patience and endurance. nobs 17:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Any reason for posting that on this page? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the only article that discusses institutional racism. Theres no examples given. And there's no Powell bio. Perhaps an article on instituional racism is needed. nobs 17:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This article sounds closer to what you discuss. Or maybe, as you say, mention of that in an article/bio on Powell? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This isn't an academic example of institutional racism because it isn't a falsifiable claim, it's a belief. This is ideology, not rationalism. Furthermore, it has little to do with this article. — Unsigned, by: Einlanzer / talk / contribs
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
On the other hand, check the dates of the comments. Also nobs isn't exactly a quality poster. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Moar whining[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/sjwhate/comments/5qj1ir/what_google_shows_you_when_you_look_up_white/ FuzzyCatPotato of the American Eels (talk/stalk) 00:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so is Google retarded? Or was that result image doctored by the Alt-righter who posted to that thread? Because what's in that summary image is not the message of our article, for all the reasons Facepalm Also, I'm disturbed by even the fact that there is a subreddit in existence called "SJWhate". Long, deep sigh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope, it's real. But wow, why the hell are our quotes being quoted? CorruptUser (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
A search engine has failed fundamentally if it presents the stuff we're debunking as the view we ourselves hold on the same. Oy vey. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

KotakuInAction shows off its usual brilliance[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/726mvx/rational_wiki_has_a_brilliant_takedown_of_anita/

The cognitive dissonance -- and the absurd focus on Sarkeesian -- is a horrific delight. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's say I don't want to give traffic to a subreddit devoted to off-brand nazis. What's my take away in that hypothetical situation? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Take away: Right-wingers haven't changed a bit. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Why can words have multiple meanings at the same time?[edit]

I don't care whether or not you agree with this definition. However, I care for one thing: the part of the article that says words can have multiple and equally valuable meanings. I just want to no one thing: Why does this statement make logical sense. — Unsigned, by: Kyle / talk / contribs 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to give a few examples of words with multiple meanings, gay, fall, and faith. GrammarCommie (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kyle On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
I feel like I'm misunderstanding your question. The English language is full of words with more than one meaning. CowHouse (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@Cowhouse you say that a common use is the same as a correct use.-— Unsigned, by: Kyle / talk / contribs
@Kyle These are all correct uses of the word "mean":
(a) to convey meaning, (b) unkind, (c) average.
Are any of these incorrect?
Also, I never said anything about a "common use" and please read what I said earlier about signing your comments on talk pages. CowHouse (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@CowHouse What I mean is that there is no reason to assume that words can have multiple meanings, and that your rebuttal is an appeal to popularity. — Unsigned, by: Kyle / talk / contribs

Troll CowHouse (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow![edit]

Wow! Rational wiki does not endorse this Neo-Marxist bullshit? I am PLEASANTLY surprised! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

P+P is not derived from Marxism, and your surprise is like that of a child discovering that his rival is a real person and not a boogyman. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I don't view RW as rivals. I like this site. I am just surprised that RW took a more critical position towards this bullshit than many take! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Sarkeesian quote[edit]

One of the discussion points that seems missing in the article is the false notion that power works in a rigid way in advanced societies. The initial quote at the top of the page suggesting that women can't be sexist is absurd from multiple different perspectives, and I'm not sure if it's there as a claim the article is supporting or using an example of absurdity. Even when applying the power + plus prejudice definition of racism/sexism, it's an unreasonable claim to say that women don't hold any power just because elite positions are more commonly held by men. Power just doesn't operate that way in advanced societies - for one, there is no "male collective" and "female collective" dominating society. For two, "power" is an abstract concept that operates on numerous levels in extremely complex ways in almost any society, let alone advanced western democracies. So it's simply an absurd claim to suggest that women and minorities can't be sexist or racist, or to suggest that bigoted views held and expressed by women and minorities are not toxic. It actually reeks of a privileged attempt at excusing yourself from responsibility for your own bigotry, and should not be endorsed by rationalwiki. — Unsigned, by: Einlanzer / talk / contribs

Alarming thesis. No integration of intersectionality?[edit]

I've been using Rational Wiki as a resource to learn about modern hate movements. You guys generally seem committed to opposing racism in all its forms, so I am disappointed to see this one-sided attack on a modern social justice theory that reads like a support of alt-right fearmongering about persecuted white people. Why is there a complete lack of integration of intersectionality theory? Kimberlé Crenshaw came up with it in the '80s, and it's been an active part of social justice discourse for the past 15 years or so. The debate on if we're in a fourth wave of feminism centers on the integration of intersectionality as a radical upheaval of feminist thought.

All of the questioning about "Can white people really have power in certain scenarios if they're impoverished?" is adequately addressed through intersectionality and vertices of privilege. White people hold power racially through white supremacy. The wealthy hold power through classism. Impoverished white people hold power racially but not financially. They don't suddenly lose their status as a privileged race because they lack privilege in one arena. White wealthy people hold power in two arenas; black wealthy people hold power in one and are disadvantaged in another, and impoverished black people are disadvantaged in two ways. Then there are more complicated prejudices where people may be disadvantaged specifically for the overlap of two social identities where each one individually lacks specific disadvantage in a specific context. Add in all the other interacting social identities, and you have modern social justice theory 101.

As it stands, this article promotes racism (white supremacy) through giving people a misguided perception of anti-racist efforts and encourages readers to tear down anti-racist activists as themselves "racists". It reads like alt-right propaganda. Whoever started it was probably operating on a knee-jerk "They're coming after me!" thought process in common with right-wing discourse. Fox News pundits could currently reference this article to promote their hateful agendas. The examples posted in previous Talk page entries of right-wingers/alt-righters apparently agreeing with and supporting this page should come across as major red flags.

I highly recommend an immediate about-face to the stance that "prejudice plus power" is the current, most useful definition of "racism" in the modern social justice context. Just as "racism" is no longer about antisemitism, it is no longer descriptive of the black guy who hates white people. The article should integrate discussion of intersectionality and show how these various examples of the modern definition supposedly not working are wrong and represent a regressive movement seeking to undermine modern anti-racist activism. Baring that, at least present both definitions as useful tools for different contexts. Keeping it as it is now only serves the far-right. --GoingRampant (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)