Is the equation "racism= prejudice + power" correct? What do you think about it?

He's half white or as they say white passing black.

It was created solely because SJW-type leftists wanted to make racism solely apply to white people in order to justify collective guilt and collective punishment.

It's not much more than mental gymnastics/semantics, the people who unironically push that shit are totally indoctrinated and, if white, likely self-loathing.

Well the two can be connected, making it hard to distinguish. Are blacks in America more likely to get arrested because they're black or poor? It's obviously both.

this. I get the feeling that this is used as doublethink where they define words in a way that is useful and then use them to make arguments that use the more commonly accepted definition. gender is a good example of this. they say "gender is a social construct" while defining gender not as sex, but as the various social constructs surrounding the sexes, as though this makes the statement some sort of revelation. meanwhile they'll say that people's genders are "assigned at birth", referring to a doctor checking male or female on your birth certificate. the same thing is true with the racism example, as they use this as a paint to paint blacks and minorities as morally better than whites because they are not (and by its slippery meaning of power cannot be) "racist"

Even if this were true power does not exist without context.

If you walk through a predominantly black neighborhood and a gang confronts you on the basis of race they sure as hell have the power in that situation.

sounds like softcore nonsense

I run into this problem a lot dealing with leftists. They reject the classical definition of words in favor or a more colloquial or cliquish definitions.

I may not know how to spell all the big words, but I know what they mean.

It seems like 90% of time my education consisted of textbooks redefining words that already had an established definition.

These weren't trade terms or industry standards like in science or engineering, but "soft science" sociological definitions that seemed to change constantly.

Redefining vague common-use words or reusing a word for a new meaning isn't necessarily a problem, but these people use it entirely to confuse and subvert.

Half of their philosophy is mere sophistry composed by changing around the meanings of words.

>I may not know how to spell all the big words, but I know what they mean.

Basically this. While other students were busy memorizing how to spell words, I was busy learning what they mean.

*tips fedora*

Trying to replace common definitions, or more specifically, classical definitions used by established academics, seems to be one of the primary motivations of junior academics.

College Sophmores seem speak their own language, filled with euphemisms, doublespeak and politically correct terminology.

If I had to come up with a name for it, I'd call it "softspeak". Its the tone you take with a lover or child, not really suited to debate.

Faith, here’s an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. O, come in, equivocator.

It's their way of ensuring that they are always right. They figured out that they can change the accepted definitions of words just by using them that way, and unfortunately the scientific community is teaching them that they'll get their way if they pitch a big enough of a fit (such as the gender=/= sex nonsense).

It's moving the goal posts to the nth degree, where you essentially just say that you're right no matter what just because you say you are.

Asians make higher incomes on average than whites, are more represented in high-income/prestigious jobs, have higher on average IQs, etc. etc. The average Asian in the west is going to be more "powerful" than the average white man in the west, by the retarded definition of racism that OP has put up me going to my local Wok and calling everyone slanty-eyed chinks would be totally acceptable, and not at all racist.

Just because racism historically has tended to correlate with a power structure (slavery, feelings about immigrants in the early 20th century, Jim Crow, etc.) does not mean that it is exclusively intertwined. Recall that in 1930s Germany the Jews were not hated because they were a drain on society, but rather because they were scene as too crafty the integrated too well and they were scene as fucking over the native race.

No that's literally the definition of institutional racism that regressive leftists want to replace the regular definition

This is a falsehood. There is no evidence, morally, empirically, etc.. to state that you require a position of power to be racist. Racism is not a projection of state power onto a second-class citizen, Racism is the irrational hatred of a group of people based entirely on their geographical origin or skin color instead of the content of their character. I have never known this to be proven otherwise. The lower-class grocery store clerk can have just as much irrational hatred for Blacks as a Ph. D. Banker. The point of racism is the irrationality. If you are a White Christian living in Syria, you are not racist to be worried if a bunch of black-clad brown guys in Technicals swarm into your village and start asking who is Islamic and who is Christian. If you are a Chinese Doctor in Baltimore, you might be forgiven if you intentionally avoid a group of roaming black youths.

Correct enough. If one wants to fault them left, it's for very rarely talking about the places in the world where brown people got prejudice and power. But, well, those places don't come up much in conversation.

> Racism is not a projection of state power onto a second-class citizen, Racism is the irrational hatred of a group of people based entirely on their geographical origin or skin color instead of the content of their character. I have never known this to be proven otherwise.
That's because definitions aren't provable.

>Racism is the irrational hatred of a group of people based entirely on their geographical origin or skin color instead of the content of their character.

False. It is an entirely rational hatred based on a (usually false) interpretation of that cultures moores and values.

Prejudice can also be linked to old conflicts that led to personal loss. Wars, terrorist attacks, rebellions, organized crime, and other established conflicts can all conspire to conflate racial prejudice with the actions of lone individuals.

Racism is often mistaking the character of an entire nation or ethnicity for the actions of a handful of individuals.

Is racemixing the only way to despook people?

Hey kike

No, that's a revision for an ideological purpose.

You can call that 'systematic racism', but redefining all racism to that is nonsensical.

Nothing in the word 'racism' implies social power, it simply implies discrimination based upon race.

Systematic racism in this context can easily imply social power, hence it being a more apt phrase.

:/

I see what you did there.

Even Caesar was held powerless in the palace at Egypt when the Egyptians revolted against Cleopatra. Without his army he was as vulnerable as any other man.

Hitler had Jewish/African ancestry so no

WE
E

Anyone is free to have their own definitions on words. Much like anyone else is free to ignore them. Dictionary doesent define it as such so its basically just a definition by racist retards who want to avoid being labeled as such. Like people who seem to claim this dont even deny that they are racist, they just want to be called bigoted instead for some reason. They want to pretend they are at a higher moral level than their persieved opressors maybe?

>spreading contraband ideas
OP is just asking for a free helicopter ride.

It's intentionally trying to change the meaning of words to achieve a political agenda

It's also stupid because as a consequence it means that two ethnic minorities cannot racist to each other.

So if some indian restaurant owners intentionally give bad service to blacks, or if some black people intentionally target some east asians for assault, magically neither of those things are racist because they don't control the police or political or legal power.

moronic because obviously ethnic minorities are very often racist towards each other

If they do they're just stupid. It has nothing to do with police violence towards minorities or the difficulties to find a job, which are more important.

No, it's a stupid idea used to distort the meanings of words until language means nothing.

It's a reverse of actual racism. White people are at the top of racist attitudes with blacks demonized the most, SJW racism turns that on its head by demonizing white people and some Asians.

I like it, but it's almost too weak. All forms of discrimination follow the same model...and it applies to all scales. This same equation proves that minorities can also be hateful when they have the upper hand in that locality.

Here's an example:
-bunch of cis-white-males making fun of a trans-person is "prejudice+power=transism"

-bunch of trans-people making fun of a cis-white-male is "prejudice+power=cisism"

*tipping intensifies*

The word, "racism" has nothing to do with social power. The word is made up of, "race" and, "ism." If you want a word with the definition that this picture supplies then pick another word.

Literally fuck off and die

logically explain what the problem is

It's absolutely retard and just goes to show how shit these people are at maths.

If racism = power + prejudice, you can still be racist without any power. The equation just becomes racism = prejudice + 0. What they are looking for is racism = prejudice*power.

as an economist, the complete lack of mathematical knowledge in the other social sciences is very concerning. Furthermore, I dislike how they use words, instead of formalizing the terms into variables so you can actually do something with it.

You're either knowingly or unkowingly attempting to destroy straight white men. This makes you my enemy as I do not want to die.

No. Racism is a false discrimination based on race of somebody.

Fuck off

The problem with this wrong definition is that it introduces two differtent standards of morality and respect of the other, purely on the ground of race. Whites are required to be respectful and attentive of other races needs and aspirations, while minorities will not be judged by the same meter because they couldnt know better. It's an inherently racist concept

No. Americans are retarded.

I don't see what and said could be construed as wanting to destroy straight white men. They are just offering definitions of racism.

Some groups really need to stop redefining words commonly used to refer to one thing to suddenly refer to something else in order to fit an agenda.

Let's call that (prejudice+social power) something else than racism. Because racism in the vernacular just means hatred of other races. That's it.
I'm ok with using a specific term for that, but let's do that instead of insisting people use your randomly generated definition.

If you get all haughty about the fact that other races "can't be racist because according to my new definition..." we're never gonna have a conversation if we can't even agree on the dictionary, on the fucking language.

But I guess we're past having a conversation in this society.

This seems to be the thing.
The left is actively sabotaging its own ability to have a conversation with the opposite side of the spectrum. The whole "discourse" stuff they've been obsessed with over the past few decades seems to have been more about driving a wedge between people in order to speed up the full-on confrontation ( revolution ), than a concern with linguistics, semiotics or what have you.

It already has a name as far as im aware, institutional racism. Im not really sure why they are trying to apply it to regular racism though.

It doesn't have to be hatred of some race, it could just be prejudice, often used negatively to undermine someone.

Asians have small penis.
Asians are bad drivers.
Blacks are violent and stupid.
Whites are cry babies.
Whites can't be trusted and are greedy.

It doesn't even matter if it's true.
It's just a word.

It's a definition that falls totally flat on its face when you go outside the US

The Rwandan genocide wasn't racist according to this definition because the Tutsis were wealthy cattle farmers favored by the colonial administration

It's not just about "social power". It's about power in general.

A black man might be subject to racism in the sense that he has a worse chance getting hired than a white guy even if he brings the same qualifications but a white guy in a ghetto or in a prison, where the blacks and lations make the rules and dominate the local society may be subject to racism in the same sense. Just like a kid in a shitty ghetto school might end up getting bullied for being the only white kid in class.

Progressives tend to think of "whites" as this homogeneous mass of people that dominates society and keeps all others down, but factually whites are anything but unified. There's a lot of social disparity and the rich white CEO has very little in common with a white guy from a working class background. In fact, that the progressive left has been about nothing but identity politics is one of the major reasons why they can't establish themselves any longer. If they give the white working class the impression that they believe their problems weren't real because they're oh-so-privileged, then they shouldn't be surprised when they don't vote for them any longer.

Wrong,

Racism is just an outdated train of thought from 19th colonial "social Darwinism".

People had to somehow explain themselves why tribes still existed when Europeans had things like the railroad.

That's why the so called "white mans burden", is was at first not a "kill a niggers,sandmonkeys,chinks and spics" attitude, but an attitude how to teach these "misguided children" the way of the White man.

But then comes In a bunch of Anglican Americans who thought themselves better than anyone even their fellow white man, and they shat upon everything with their eternal Anglo behavior, and of cause because they are the "culture"-powerhouse of the modern times they have to ship their retarded ideologies of white self loathing and chuckholding around the western world

It actually does work. Tutsis were a minority of the country. They make up roughly 10% of the population. The genocide they experienced were systematic from top to bottom. From the leaders of the country to the leaders of the villages to the local population, they all conspired to kill every Tutsi and the exterminate them.

I no longer care what "racism" is or what people think it signifies.

the thing is it doesn't make sense
if
racism=prejudice+power
then
prejudice=racism-power (prejudice is racism without power?)
or
power=racism-prejudice (power is racism without prejudice?)

neither of these are correct so you can't just throw it as an equation if it doesn't make any sense mathematically

>r = p + P (power)
>p = r - P
>P = r - p

It makes sense if you use substitution method.
>Power
P = r - p
P = (p + P) - p
P = P

>Prejudice
p = r - P
p = (p + P) - P
p = p

No because that contradicts the definition in the Webster dictionary.

Technically correct because the word originally was used to describe a society where some races are higher than others. The meaning has changed a long time ago tho. Going by the old definition, saying things like "I hate niggers" is not racist, just prejudiced.

Adding to that, creating "safe spaces" where white people are not allowed to enter is even by their own definition racist because they are creating their own little system which discriminates people based on their race.

Intersectionality is Marxist horseshit that tries to justify anti-white racism. Look up Mott and Bailey Doctrine.

archive.is/1wl4x

Well then it's just semantics. I mean honestly by this definition most people as individuals cannot be racist. I mean that white guy stacking boxes at wallmart in Maine cannot be racist. And while I will say prejudice that is back by power is worse because it can actually be enacted; I don't know if that is a good enough reason to changes definitions of words to more contentious ones.

WE WUZ ADOLF HITLER UND SCHEISSE

I can see some kind of logic in this definition, but the way SJW's try to apply it is asinine. Everyone has a LITTLE social power, right? Like, how many Black americans have to be business owners, teachers, congressmen, union leaders, preachers, etc before we consider them to have "social power?" there are tons of black Americans with tons of money and power and influence. Black Americans HAVE social power, by any measure.

Social power is a meme

Take your SJW shit elsewhere, faggot.

>Racism is the irrational hatred of a group of people based entirely on their geographical origin or skin color instead of the content of their character.

Wrong, racism is the hatred (or even dislike) of a race
Whether it's rational (and trust me it can be) or not is irrelevant

In that case i can't be racist.

r u mad nigger boi?

>Uncle Cleetus living in a van has power pouring out of every orifice of his

He isn't poor because he's "white"

Basically, when black american would be in charge of the police, the justice and all the institutions that matter.

Incorrect, it's only "racial prejudice". If you add power you have applied racism

You seem to be under the impression that retards like you are welcome here. Either present an argument or fuck off.

A shit, vaguely defined meme

All races, all social classes, have been racist through history, no exception

100 years ago, people in Europe were still trying to claim their neighbour were subhumans of a different race and that they urinated through their skin pores

Everybody has been hating their neighbours, those of the same race, those of different races, from peasants to kings

>100 years ago, people in Europe were still trying to claim their neighbour were subhumans of a different race and that they urinated through their skin pores

When I'm saying "neighbour" I mean "this other European country", not "our neighbour on the other side of the Mediterranean"

look up for WW1 propaganda, full of funny pseudo-scientific that would seriously claim that the other side was made of monkeys

Definitions are platonic. This is retarded. You can define the word in any way you want, it doesn't mean anything. I shall define racism as "the act of walking to the store". But it's just a word, I'm not actually talking about what we're all thinking.
Whether racism is defined as percieved oppressor vs victim, or if it's defined as just prejudice by race in general, aren't both of those things "bad"? We're just playing with words here.

Anyway you know, I'm really curious as to who's making these sort of threads because after going to leftypol after hearing all the boogyman stories they really seem more authoritarian and pretty staunchly anti-postmodernist.

>But it's just a word, I'm not actually talking about what we're all thinking.
How does everyone know what you're thinking of what you're saying doesn't make sense. Then everyone will just be thinking "why is he so angry about going to the store?"

Please be joking.
If not, as another economist, this dumbshit obsession you and so many other economists seem to have with taking thought experiments literally and cramming everything down to the most simplistic empirical models with zero applicability has ruined the school's reputation.

t. Praxeolotard

Mate, I despise the Austrian school. But don't pretend some ebin linear linear equation with a magicked up variables to fill holes (see velocity of money) can represent how we interact in the marketplace