08-22-2020, 08:29 PM
Thanks for the response. I think you made some good points in your previous post as well, in terms of your efforts to look at people's backgrounds, recognize the degree to which beliefs about race are largely acquired uncritically, and in childhood. I took you to be raising an important issue about how we deal with people who may now seem "out of time." I've also posted on this subject before. For example, I don't waste time declaring the Founding Fathers were "racist" when I suspect I'd have thought no differently than they if raised in their time.
For the moment, though I want to address the issue of definitions, especially of "racism" and "leftism," and I want to do so by identifying some criteria of good definition that ought hold no matter what the issue or one's political position.
In what follows, let's assume that I am not looking for opportunities to "call out" some alleged "blatant racism" on your part. Let's just look at the issues as of general interest.
Consistency is an important value in definitions. If a definition doesn't apply to all the cases it is designed to describe/classify, that is a weakness, often fatal. E.g., a bicycle must have two wheels. If something doesn't, it's not a bicycle. "Monotheism" means belief in one god. Two gods and your belief is not monotheism. Sometimes there are borderline cases and disputes; e.g., some think Christianity is not really monotheistic.
A definition of "racism" I'd say, at a minimum, ought to include a belief that "race" is a biological given, not a social/cultural construction, a belief that some "races" are inherently superior or inferior, and that this inherence ought to be reflected in political order. This basis is necessary even where people insist that "racism" can only be behavior, not thought and belief unacted, or when it can only be "systemic."
One way of testing a definition is to imagine how it would apply to possible cases.
Remember that today people still debate whether the Founding Fathers were "racist," and this spins out from current issues like whether its ok to tear down Confederate statues cuz they stood for "racism," then proceeding then to the question of statues of Washington and Jefferson. Upon hearing your definition, many "rational persons" would not think it "patently absurd" to wonder if it fits, say, Thomas Jefferson, someone who had a black lover and thought slavery a bad institution, but still kept slaves. You wouldn't be able to show that Jefferson "wouldn't have anything to do" with his slaves, and you wouldn't be able to convince those rational persons his slave-holding behavior wasn't racist, or even that he "hated" Blacks.
Further, people might wonder how your definition could be applied today. Which groups would fit, which would not. And it's likely the "Jefferson" problem would arise again in form another. Or you have a definition which defines only contemporary white supremacists as "racist." Good news for Trump, maybe. The racism studied by contemporary social scientists would have been defined away.
No one used to crafting political science definitions assumes s/he will get it right the first time; no one used to crafting such definitions assumes someone is "stupid" for not getting it right the first time. Just suggesting this definition could use some tweaking, or some further stipulation as to its use.
For the moment, though I want to address the issue of definitions, especially of "racism" and "leftism," and I want to do so by identifying some criteria of good definition that ought hold no matter what the issue or one's political position.
In what follows, let's assume that I am not looking for opportunities to "call out" some alleged "blatant racism" on your part. Let's just look at the issues as of general interest.
(08-22-2020, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: "A true racist wouldn't have anything to with those they hated, I don't think that's ever been the case with Trump. I think he has a lot of racist opinions and thoughts. I know this comparison won't really connect with you but it's a direct parallel. "
Quote: Some flaws with the "true racist" definition above. To be consistent we'd have to say that slave masters who interacted daily with their house slaves in the antebellum South, literally living with them, were not true racists because they had "something to do" with their slaves. Or maybe there is an unstated premise here maybe that true racism requires "hatred"?
This argument is ridiculous to the point of being offensive. No rational person could extrapolate that position to the patently absurd lengths that you did in this section.
Consistency is an important value in definitions. If a definition doesn't apply to all the cases it is designed to describe/classify, that is a weakness, often fatal. E.g., a bicycle must have two wheels. If something doesn't, it's not a bicycle. "Monotheism" means belief in one god. Two gods and your belief is not monotheism. Sometimes there are borderline cases and disputes; e.g., some think Christianity is not really monotheistic.
A definition of "racism" I'd say, at a minimum, ought to include a belief that "race" is a biological given, not a social/cultural construction, a belief that some "races" are inherently superior or inferior, and that this inherence ought to be reflected in political order. This basis is necessary even where people insist that "racism" can only be behavior, not thought and belief unacted, or when it can only be "systemic."
One way of testing a definition is to imagine how it would apply to possible cases.
Remember that today people still debate whether the Founding Fathers were "racist," and this spins out from current issues like whether its ok to tear down Confederate statues cuz they stood for "racism," then proceeding then to the question of statues of Washington and Jefferson. Upon hearing your definition, many "rational persons" would not think it "patently absurd" to wonder if it fits, say, Thomas Jefferson, someone who had a black lover and thought slavery a bad institution, but still kept slaves. You wouldn't be able to show that Jefferson "wouldn't have anything to do" with his slaves, and you wouldn't be able to convince those rational persons his slave-holding behavior wasn't racist, or even that he "hated" Blacks.
Further, people might wonder how your definition could be applied today. Which groups would fit, which would not. And it's likely the "Jefferson" problem would arise again in form another. Or you have a definition which defines only contemporary white supremacists as "racist." Good news for Trump, maybe. The racism studied by contemporary social scientists would have been defined away.
No one used to crafting political science definitions assumes s/he will get it right the first time; no one used to crafting such definitions assumes someone is "stupid" for not getting it right the first time. Just suggesting this definition could use some tweaking, or some further stipulation as to its use.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
