For anyone curious about the "48% of white people opposed to interracial marriage" stat, the sample was Alabama republican party primary voters, which is SUPER not the same as "all white people in America"
Vaush calling a spade a spade is why I followed him in the first place. Most other lefties are allergic to true intersectionality, and they play a weird semantics game with race and sex issues. Vaush’s takes can sometimes be pretty bad, but it’s refreshing to see someone on my side who’s willing to put their foot down on bullshit and call it what it is. I never truly fell down the alt right pipeline, but I definitely picked up a lot of bad ideas specifically because the right were the only people making sense for some issues. Vaush kept me from that.
Exactly. One of the reasons why a sizable portion of normies get sucked into the alt-right vortex is because of the relentless, toxic wokescolding and bad faith argumentation on places like Tumblr that created the environment that to even have a minor disagreement with a person of color or an LGBT person about ANYTHING, it means you have underlying bigotry against throse groups. I've always rejected those types of perscriptive arguments which is why I feel that Vaush gave a voice to the voiceless. People who have left wing ideas and are dead set against the right, but are against toxicity in the left.
What’s something you think he has a bad take on? I tend to agree with him on most things but i like hearing the disagreements bc i wanna make sure i actually agree and am not just doing it blindly
@@lzmunch his deffenition of constitutional monarchy is wrong. But other than that, the man has very few L's. I find myself agreeing with his points like 99% of the time.
Racism and systemic racism is FAR better way of discussing racism than the whole "prejudice + power", all that does is excuse people of colour to be racist or play it down badly.
@@Based_Proletariat Racism:prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. Please rethink your life and learn to bite the bullet that people of color can be racists. Just ask an asian how they think of black people. Black republicans how they think of mexicans.
This guy has the same energy as people who see others explaining how the patriarchy can also hurt men, only to point and laugh and say "well you made the system, so you can't complain". I know it's not a perfect analogy, just gives the same vibes
This is extremely important because “men” broadly didn’t actually make the patriarchy. Rich, wealthy, land-owning white men in power made that system. It (sort of) benefits all men, but the vast majority of men had no say in the matter.
vaush was the first leftie I could stand to actually listen to when I was in my alt right arc. he really does have a great way with his words to be able to reach across the aisle. thank you Vaush for saving me from that brain rot
I'll go ahead and say he grabbed me when I was in my "enlightened centrist/all sides bad" phase. It's hard to admit that sometimes one side is worse than the other, even if they seem the same on the surface, because it challenges us to actually form opinions and even an identity around them instead of just trying to act better than and above it all by declaring everyone else is stupid or extremist for being present in anything.
I appreciate Vaush's clarity. I don't fully agree with everything that he says or the way he says it, but most of what he says is expressed such that I don't really have to do much guesswork determining what his position really is and I can tell why he chooses to speak the way he does.
It is extremely important to call people out no matter their status. Vaush was the person who drew me away from being a disaffected former conservative who mostly consumed dry factual analysis because he is a lefty who doesn't shy away from calling people dumbfucks just because there are sociological explanations of their behaviors. I feel one of the most coherent criticisms the right has ever made of the modern progressive left is our use of sociology, more leftists need to understand that explaining behavior is not the same as excusing it EDIT: I realize I may have come off as dismissive of sociology; I'm not, it's an incredibly powerful frame of analysis for understanding the world. But sociology's purvue is explaining behavior, not justifying it. That is a more succinct summation of my position
As someone with a minor in social sciences, it felt really weird to learn during the Anti-SJW era that while the right absolutely misunderstood sociology, the activists and online lefties bigots used as the face of progressivism did as well. Ever since online activism appeared as we know it, there has been groups among marginalized people who took some sociological ideas and used it as the basis for their arguments, but with none of the deeper understanding and contextual nuance that the academics who actually find that term useful have. A lot of sociological concept aren't meant to be taken as facts, they are lens of analysis that are purposefuly limited, meant to be used in a certain context and with a nuanced understanding of sociological analysis that is usually absent in online activist circles. Furthermore, sociology isn't without it's inner divisions, and even within progressive academics movements there are disagreements regarding the usefulness and validity of certain concepts (which is also why much of the terms and arguments used by wokescolds become antiquated within academia after just a few years. Academia is not immune to trends, nor areprogressive movements to bad ideas, which thankfully rarely last). What I like about Vaush is that he is one of the few prominent online leftists who actually knows how to approach this sort of sociology. He can recognize this rethoric for what it is, a misuse or misunderstanding of sociology and political science. Half of his criticism of other "lefties" boils down to that.
Here's the catch, though. Some of the few things I disagree with Vaush on are the idea that shame is a good way to regulate social behavior, or that it's productive to see people as "bad". You can still call them dumb if they're doing that in a debate, but that isn't an argument for broader social utility. See, the thing is, in behavioral psychology it's known that negative reinforcement is a bad way of bringing about good outcomes, and not even very good at preventing bad ones. Behaviors are caused by various factors intersecting - generally not a persistent notion of "character", and absolutely not some moral essence or nature. Negative reinforcement doesn't actually resolve the underlying causes of a bad (harmful, in this case) behavior, nor does it teach better behavior. It can't do that. Telling someone what not to do isn't the same as telling them what to do because life isn't a simple set of binaries. What it does is repress the behavior - temporarily bury it out of sight - but what happens later is that that behavior can arise again involuntarily, and generally in more harmful ways. The real way to resolve a harmful behavior is to patiently and critically identify the underlying causes and address them, while also providing clear and consistent guidance toward healthier behaviors. As an example, bringing in sociology, one of the main causes of petty food theft would be poverty-induced hunger. Punishing the theft does nothing to resolve the issue - the thief is still hungry, and still unable to get food legally. So what it teaches isn't not to steal - it's not to get caught stealing, because if you still have to eat, in that situation it's often difficult if not impossible to see any alternative other than starving, or trying one's luck begging in a culture that treats beggars as subhuman, or actually living in inhumane conditions such as risking illness dumpster diving for scraps. That doesn't make the stealing part "good". It explains but doesn't morally justify the behavior. But it does reveal that the issue isn't one person being Bad, but rather that there is a systemic condition that brings about harmful behaviors. So, personally, I think moralizing about individuals is inadvisable simply because it's useless at solving problems. We should consider tactics like fear, guilt, and shame to be exactly what they are: Quick, dirty, and ineffective band-aids to complex problems. Because historically and behaviorally, that's exactly what they've always been. The use of them for social regulation originated as a shortcut to keeping people in line without having to undertake the long, brutally difficult process of addressing widespread systemic issues, and cultural inertia basically just maintained the same patterns of behavior long after they ceased being useful. Vaush actually recognizes this point in relation to BLM and riots. Riots aren't "good". People shouldn't do them. But framing the narrative as one of blaming and morally judging rioters as people is unhelpful and actively counterproductive. What riots are is "the voice of the unheard" - they're what happens when enough people for enough time are cornered, made to believe that they have no other option but to lash out, because any other avenue hasn't worked. So the riot itself is a bad thing, but rioters are not "bad people". Rather, they're broken and hurt, the results of a broken and hurtful system. So fixing the problem requires a process of figuring out what made them happen and addressing that, and positively reinforcing better behaviors such as peaceful but firm protest. The same applies to basically all other social issues. In the moment, if someone is being a dipshit and doubling down, yeah, you can call it out. But it won't solve any problems in a real sense. It can draw attention, it can get a situation temporarily under control, but it won't fix the underlying issue. It's good spectacle and theatrics though.
Half way through & the best this guy came up with is the person of African descent version of Girl boss. Then did identity politics 101 I can't be racist because my [insert person] is [insert ethnic minority] Jesus fucking Christ. 😂
@Captain Ken That's my point. It's not about blame. Blame and moral judgment don't really help. They offer gratification for the ego of the one doing the judging, but very little else.
@@FelisImpurrator You missed Ken's point that they don't understand _why_ someone would riot instead of just being the better man. You answered "Why blame them?" when Ken's question seems to have been, "Why do they choose anger and violence?" (There was a typo in the last seentence, "so, I can't entirely [...]", that you might have parsed as "can".)
Man is literally told he's holding a double standard and isn't being fair in judging people's mindsets and my guy just responds with "I don't care." Smh this is what makes us look bad
@@Based_Proletariat no one is bending to the right, a ton of libs and apolitical people also don't use this definition, and if you think being efficient at talking to them is a waste of time, you're lost
@@bobybot9320 Whatever helps sleep better, talk about Jimmy Doreknob pandering to the right, that kind of attitude and rhetoric panders to the right and makes them feel like their point of view is validated by saying that kind of garbage. The "left" might as well dissolve and join the right if that the kind of mentality that's going to be operated on.
Dude, it is SO patronizing to not call out black people when they are racist. I’m a mixed black person so maybe this guy Vaush is talking about might listen to me. This guy sounds racist to me. Seems like he thinks black people are just traumatized puppets unable to be individuals. I’m not offended anymore because the left seems to always do this. I appreciate Vaush’s perspective and respect him for standing up to this nonsense.
I'm also mixed race and my black dad sometimes slides into the mindset of the guy Vaush debated and it pisses me off. I can't say it ever offended me personally coming from the left at large, but it did seem kind of dismissive and like it was ignoring the real problem (that being the "original sin" issue Vaush brought up)
"I’m not offended anymore because the left seems to always do this." really? Which "left" - who do you mean? Most of the time when I hear a leftist say something like "its not racism is there is systemic power behind it" they dont go for the take this guy has where you damage controls a crime. I would say treating black people inferior in this way is not actually the common, well, moreso in center and definately right wing areas, but using diffeent BS logic.
kinda crazy how vaush basically said “so if a white person stabbed someone you would say it was bad, but if a black person stabbed someone it would be okay because history?” and the guest just “noooo, i’m not being patronizing, i’m just saying black people can’t make their own decisions because of their shared history!” i’m white, so probably a lot of lefties would go “how dare you talk about this with your privilege” but vaush literally sounds to me like “if white people do a bad, its bad, and if black people do a bad, its a bad… right?”
This is the bigotry of low expectations. If socioeconomic factors influenced a person of African descent to do something deemed unethical then you can not then remove the socioeconomic factors that influenced a person of European descent to do something deemed unethical. You can acknowledge the structural factors, seek to change them and hold the individual accountability all at the same time. Thus we need to call out all interpersonal racism.
I think of "Racism" as an umbrella term for both "systemic racism" and "inter-personal racism". You can say something is "racist" and context should convey which one you mean, but if it doesn't you can be more specific by saying it's "systemically racist" or "inter-personally racist". "inter-personal racism" is *probably* the more common to be mentioned within a normal conversation and should in my opinion be the default/primary definition for "racism".
Interpersonal racism is much less impactful than system racism tho? Getting called the n-word sucks, but being discriminated against in regards to quotes on homes, mistreated by police, decades of family equity gaps, that’s the shit that crushes people. Racism, to me, connotes something systemic. Interpersonal racism is more like prejudice.
@@EroticInferno My *opinion* when it comes to linguistics the definition that occurs more often in *normal* conversation (not *lefty* conversations) will become the primary/default definition of a word. In this case I think it's the inter-personal definition that's the more frequent in everyday conversation. I could of course be wrong as I've not been part of every conversation ever about racism, and cannot make an irrefutable statement about the commonality of either definition in a conversation. It's but an assumption grounded in past experience. I think that inter-personal racism is both under the umbrella of the *concept* of prejudice *and* the *word* "racism", they don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think both definitions of the *word* are part of the *concept* of racism though. I hope you understand what I'm trying to convey. :)
Only 20 minutes in, but this sounds like another debate where Vaush is concerned about converting more people to the left, and the guest cares more about ideological purity.
The edge lords won’t stop being honest. We keep trying to argue in bad faith to avoid providing bigots a vehicle, but them dang edge lord keep trying to say evidence of lies is a even better vehicle.
Even on the merits of ideological purity, the guest is still wrong. As Vaush said, the "racism=prejudice+power" is a very recent academic phenomenon that's not even adopted by everyone.
@@ParisofNowhere Is... Is 12 years ago very recent in academia years???? A bit facetious, but also serious: I met that concept 12 years ago on LJ and it looked pretty well-established by then, and mostly people just went "oh, makes sense" instead of debating it with logic.
this guy is the posterboy of people regurgitating concepts they agree with but don't fully understand. He keeps repeating himself with the same rebuttal that has nothing to do with what Vaush just said.
Idk, I think I’d rather bring over 100 conservatives into the left with a slightly incorrect definition than turn off 100 conservatives with a more correct definition. Using Vaush’s language isn’t pandering to them or being complicit in their racism, it’s meeting them where they’re at. I’ve always considered Vaush a “gateway leftie” so just let him be that. edit: just wanted to add that these conversations always make me feel like we’re in a sinking ship and there’s a bunch of people trying to argue about what to call the hole in the side. Let’s fix the hole first AND THEN decide what to call it cus if the ship sinks then it won’t really matter will it?
Haven't watched anything yet but i think the point is that the incorrect definition might negatively impact your analysis in the long run and it might waste recourses of well meaning people or drive people away too in the long run because you are effectively setting up a strawman that they then take down and think that's all there is to it. Then again no introductory piece should be like dense academic material with extra jargon if you want to attract people. So you would have to find a balance and it's probably context dependant. That said again i haven't watched anything and your comment doesn't really say what the problem is with the language so yeah idk. Edit: The first thirty minutes could easily be avoided by something like: Vaush: So if you see someone being abusive you can point at their broken home but you would still call it internalised abuse right? You would recognize that it is abuse even if it is a specific kind of abuse. Other guy, (i assume): yes of course Vaush: replace abuse with racism
@@kkounal974 There are multiple definitions of racism in dictionaries, none are the one-true definition. Language is ambiguous. The definition that most people think of when they hear the word "racism" is not the systemic one, and you should generally tailor your language to your audience. Arguments over semantics are annoying and unproductive.
why can't we just acknowledge that you can be racist towards white people, but that that racism doesn't have the same weight because of societal, historical, and systemic circumstances. as a black person, it is agonizing seeing people literally use racist talking points to try and defend us. they're living in ideological echo chambers while reinforcing racist talking points through a progressive lens.
I guess I'm not so agonized because the racial anguish I see of black people, and wanting to not entertain the smugness of those white supremacist too ready to be dismissive of that anguish trump semantics for me. I'm not saying treat black people with kiddie gloves, but your intent behind prioritizing their punishment for the sake of "fairness" when it is not fair, I find suspicious and upholds white supremacist ideals. I don't feel it reinforces racist talking points to reconsider black indiscretions because that implies that black people inherently get the benefit of the doubt, when the opposite still holds true in a white supremacist society. So what are you trying to accomplish with this scrutiny? Equality in judgment instead of equity? Then allow the system to continue to self-operate, then you will surely get your wish and that black person will no doubt get punished, don't worry. Black people at large are not being "let off the hook" here. And the paranoia that they will screams too much of "white replacement" (of vindication) and coddling white fragility to me. I don't really care if a bigot can't keep up with compartmentalizing the difference. They didn't care to genuinely create a distinction anyway, did they? So I'm not sympathetic to their frustration. As long as we operate in a white supremacist society, I have to wonder why it is more important to you to achieve equality in scrutiny and not equity in said scrutiny, and think you won't continue to perpetuate white supremacist ideals of shining a light on black indiscretions disproportionately and to conveniently disregard white ones. Consider the over-justification of criminalizing blue-collar crime compared to white-collar crime. One is considered more inherently "bad" than the other, when it just so happens that minorities commit more than the other. Awfully convenient, and I don't believe in feeding that narrative.
It's people like him who made me conservative in the first place. They're so fucking annoying with all the sementaics and I used to call ALL of it bullshit. Obviously there's systemic racism but the way this guy tries to tackle it does so much harm for his own people vs if he just didn't say anything. This kind of language thrives in an echo chamber which is probably why he's so used to talking like this.
Like another comment said "This guy can justify his girlfriend cheating on him." Why can't he say an action is racist and then delve deep into why how and when? Maybe he feels like racist is a fundamental characteristic of a bad person, while Vaush sees it as a self defeating ideology and hierarchical system? As in: If your partner cheated on you then they are unfaithful and a cheater. As for whether or not your behaviour and action, plus gender dynamics contributed to it, that is another aspect/ topic to discuss.
I'm not defending this guy specifically, but the general tendency. It's interesting to me that you used to think "It's all BS." In this case calling interpersonal racism "prejudice" or something else and calling systemic racism "racism" is too hard for people to understand, but expecting them to parse the difference between "systemic" and "interpersonal" isn't? My read of your comment, and Vaush's rhetoric here, is that we need to simplify as much as possible political discussions. I think this leads to a danger of anti-intellectualism. I think people who are serious above engaging in trying to understand sociological concepts know that it's complicated, and are willing to put in the effort to learn.
@@JebeckyGranjola the contention is saying that black racism is somehow not racism. By colloquial use, it is. Shutting our ears and saying that black people can't be racist while insisting on hyperspecific terminology does not help us. Do we want to be a weird book club, or a political movement?
I'm at 16:22 and I feel like what's happening is this person is essentializing racism. To them, "racism" isn't some simple discription of a certain kind of harmful action, it's a character trait. So it feels really wrong to use that word for marginalized people who don't benefit from a racist society in any way. A person of color can do "bad things pertaining to race" but they can never be "A RACIST" because it feels like you're saying something about their essential character.
And that would make sense if by racism they mean "the belief in the existence of disparate human races that are in conflict with each other". Which is what I think racism is. But in that case, saying that a minority can't be racist is wrong. They simply subscribe to a different kind of racism, a less successful one with next to no actual power. Yeah, white supremacy is much more ubiquitous and codified in US society, it has structures propping it up while the black guy screaming fuck whitey has himself and little else and that's a very relevant difference that you can point out without getting swamped in these stupid semantics discussions.
But black people can gain something from racism. Obviously it's nothing in the comparison to the systematic gain white people enjoy but on a personal level a racist black person might gain respect in their local group. After all they're not afraid to give back what they received from the whites. They're so bold and brave~ That's why racism among black people exists even tho it's seemingly pointless
...no one "benefits from a racist society in any way". No one. Not even the people the bias is in favor of. History has shown this, studies have shown this. The idea that white people somehow "benefit" from systemic racism just because they're not actively damaged by it as much is in itself also a racist one. Less diversity, for example, is an inherently negative impact on society that's also affecting white people. That's also why I think the term "white privilige" is bad framing - you don't really get any privileges from being white, you just get to NOT be affected by all the bad stuff that affects POC. The term itself is almost whitewashing the issue, tbh.
@@Tacklepig Well, minus times minus equals plus. In a competitive society where being better off than your competition makes it so you'll be better off in the absolute sense in the long run that is the case - of course, on a longer timescaleliving in such a society is an inherent negative, but you have to zoom out even more from the issue.
@@Based_Proletariat how is the “head in the sand” method working for you? Do you think you can convince anyone who has at any point been victimized on the basis of their race with your rhetoric?
Honestly, the power + prejudice thing is perfectly fine when discussing systemic racism between people with a mutual understanding on the issue, but from personal experience it usually just leads to conservatives shotgun blasting eighty hypotheticals borne straight from their persecution complex about a black guy with a store discriminating against white people and going "So therefore minorities CAN be racist", followed by accudations that you're defending racists because you want to discriminate against white people. It's honestly just a massive time saver to just say that racism from black people is racist rather to fingerwag and say "ah, ah, ah! *technically* it's not racism". You're still right.
its a interesting academic discussion, like how eating meat is equivalent to beatiality. like it may be an interesting topic, but not a political slogan, like please tell this guy to touch grass
I don't think the definition of racism should be "prejudice based on race" just to get conservatives over... I think that's simply rhe correct definition of racism, period. The hand wringing over making the definiton more "woke" is just stupid and causes more issues than it solves.
but it's not just conservatives though, a shit ton of young apolitical people, or even moderate progressives use that definition, cause it's the one used commonly for decades, why try to change it when it makes it extremely easy to make progressives look terrible with this?
Precisely. I have always learnt that racism is simply prejudice based on race. I have no idea where this "racism = prejudice + power" definition came about, if anything it should be discrimination = prejudice + power.
@@emilchan5379 I can tell you where it came about. For a while now, it's culturally accepted that racism is bad. But some racists who hate white people don't want feel like they are bad, so they try to change the definition of racism so that they won't fall under that umbrella. It's literally just this, and it's absolutely pathetic.
Honestly, this debate is a good example of why I like Vaush - he is not afraid of calling out other leftists on the dumb stuff they are saying. Because while I was never fully on the right, it was rhetoric like the caller's that prevented me from moving left and why I remained an "enlightened centrist" for a very long time until I found Vaush. The problem is that many leftists, like this caller, don't realise there is a difference between interpersonal racism and systemic racism. Racism is simply the umbrella term for both interpersonal racism and systemic racism. By narrowly defining all racism as prejudice + power, you are at best ignoring the fact that personal racism does exist, and at worst you are excusing minorities for holding bigoted views. Racism is simply prejudice based on race, that's it. Power might be required for systemic racism, but it is not necessary for interpersonal racism. Also just because there is a explanation for why someone might be racist doesn't mean they aren't actually being racist, or that their racism is justified. For all their talk about intersectionality, far too often leftists don't actually embrace it, because that would require acknowledging that it is possible for minority groups to be bigoted against other groups. Instead they would rather engage in idpol and play semantics. I guarantee you, if you were to talk to any lay person not in an leftist echo chamber about racism, they aren't going to define it as this caller did.
I hate the fake-intersectionalists, jfc do I hate them. I want to upend a pan of cold plain spaghetti on their heads. Yeah, it's _hard_ to account for it, 'cause then you need to learn enough about _both_ intersecting subjects to figure out if it's bidirectional or not, if and how bad the power imbalance is, and then start untangling shit to figure out what you have to call out on what side and how to approach it-- and if _you_ have privilege you also need to check that and see if you're being biased... It's a nightmare unraveled yarn ball but that's not an excuse to give up and just say "it exists!" and use it when convenient.
Stop justifying prejudice on the part of minorities. That's what you're doing, full stop. I hate this conversation, and that it has to be had so many times.
@Zachery Eckard Fun fact: USSR also had strange ideas about race and ethnicity. Like they made Poland basically an ethnostate. You can't have ethnic tensions between Poles and Ukrainians (and Germans, and Jewish people) if they don't live next to each other, right? Well, now we have deal with those unresolved tensions once again. Thank God most of the people who remember the Bad Things which happened during WWII are dead
Malcom X discussed similar in his book, he said when a high profile crime committed by a white person it would be blamed on society, the parents or the neighborhood/social conditions they grew up in, but when a black person committed crime it was an entire problem with the black community and it was affecting all of race relations and those good whites were really supportive of improving the race relations are now going to be skeptical because of this story. When my guess is in reality one should always take in consideration those conditions but apply them equally, and call a spade a spade when bigotry is displayed, if one wants to have a deeper dive then one can do that but not an excuses to talk down any crime. I feel like I botched Malcolm‘s words but hopefully that made sense.
Another example is addiction. People who are addicts have a different brain function then a non addict who also is committing a crime, that’s not shaming addicts that’s just science, they more inclined to ignore social norms and laws, therefore imo, and sometimes laws or outcomes try to reflect this, the addict is given a different sentence to a degree or is more focused on treatment and recovery (as most crimes should be treated in a way) compared to just a random thief who’s robbing for money or even fun. You can say people who grew up poor and or POC, could also affect nature of why they committed crime which can connect to treatment without ignoring any harm was done, just go about treatment differently. I wonder if the guest would agree with this comparison, to wrap it up A supremacist Jewish black Israelite who commits a crime should have a different discussion and understanding compared to a white nationalist who commits a crime, now if that crime really hurt other people and there should be punishment and rehabilitation, however the black Jew should have a different form of recovery because of their life conditions and experiences than the white supremacists in America should get, they should both have resources thrown at them to make them a more tolerated open minded individual to help us build civilization, but how you go about it should be differently depending on how they live and what they’ve experienced.
The guy literally said he doesn't care. That's pretty much the summary. You use terms that don't work outside the bubble. But it doesn't matter. If I need half a page of additional explanations for a definition and it can also very easily be used against me by political opponents, it is not clever.
@@daraghokane4236 On the left in general, it's almost a distinction to use language that normal people don't understand as much as possible. When solidarity is mentioned here, only the oppressed groups are meant. Linking up with mainstream society is something like betrayal. If you point out that it doesn't work, then, as in this conversation, there is a reference to morality. It has to work that way because it's morally nicer that way. About half of the ammunition used by the right against the left relates to comical word constructions
As an Asian guy, this guys is probably the type of tell me that when black people do hate crimes against Asians is not racially motivated but rather because they are poor or some other excuse.
Yeah let's ignore all the Anti-Black sentiment in the Asian community and all the Asians that have committed hate crimes against Black people...I haven't forgotten about the Korean store clerk that shot Latasha Harlins assuming she was going to steal a bottle of juice. Get bent.
Precisely, there were instances of hate crimes against Asians by blacks due to covid misinfo and paranoia. According to this guy those were not hate crimes.
This is the bigotry of low expectations. If socioeconomic factors influenced a person of African descent to do something deemed unethical then you can not then remove the socioeconomic factors that influenced a person of European descent to do something deemed unethical. You can acknowledge the structural factors, seek to change them and hold the individual accountable all at the same time. Thus we need to call out all interpersonal racism.
@@JebeckyGranjola But all behavior is not explained socioeconomically. Some poor people steal to survive but some in a similar situation might resort to panhandling instead. You cannot absolve the former without equivocating his actions with the latter which was clearly more ethical.
@Steven Clark I'm not really following here, especially that last sentence. My intuition is to say that they are equivocal in regards to thier motivations. Isn't that what we're talking about here, thier motivation for behavior, not the behavior itself? Honestly, unless we are talking some kind of evo psych, I do think that all behavior is socioeconomic. Even within an interpersonal relationship, the form of that relationship is socially contingent. How could it be otherwise?
7:31 ur "average person of color" can definitely Definitely tell a racist from a non racist also can we stop just doing this power plus prejudice thing it It makes 0 sense to me And many other people I myself have plenty of racist family members who actually hate white people because they're white and they have it better and benefit from the very system... As I understand it my personal opinion is racism begets more racism ist racism regardless if the people in power are being racist or the people without power. racism is racism and it's bullshit There is no power plus prejudice
An hour of "um actually" and splitting hairs. This guy has no concept of how conversational language works, not every discussion about racism is going to be a deep dive into the structure of racism. Sometimes you see a racist thing and just call it racist, we all know what's being said.
Nope, people just suck at differentiating academic discourse from real-life stuff. You tend to focus only on the systemic in academic discourse because the interpersonal aspect is really only anecdotal, and thus doesn't offer valid data for discussion. That's why it's often excluded from the conversation, and why in academic circles, the "ism" is often only defined as systemic. But on an interpersonal, individual level, it's really hard to actually grasp the systemic stuff, because it's not REALLY real - it's a statistical trend, it's not really something you experience directly. Individuals experience individual things, not systemic ones.
I sometimes get into a similar disagreement with my feminist friends because I don't really use the term "patriarchy." I find much more success talking to people using "societal gender norms" or something. I've spoken to a lot of dudes about challenges women face in society along with how societal gender roles can hurt men as well. Some guys feel attacked when they hear the term "patriarchy" as if they were being personally attacked. I'm not going to suggest anyone else stop using the term, I've just personally found it easier to talk to conservatives and anti-sjw in my own life without using that term.
This is really a thing. Many guys I've talked to agreed to pretty much every problem that partiarchy has brought upon men but as soon as I bring the term patriarchy into the conversation, the immediately became antagonistic or at least skeptical. Maybe the term is just rotten, I don't know.
Uh I never realized that, but I see what you mean. As sadly one of the weaknesses of feminism in reaching men is that some its language... makes men feel like feminism blames men for everything wrong, when it’s more a societal fault. I think I too will try to more consciously use “societal gender roles” instead of patriarchy when talking about it.
I'm torn because on the one hand I agree that patriarchy isn't the best for it, since the concept we refer to as patriarchy certainly doesn't benefit the majority of men. On the other hand I don't think describing it as gender norms is fully analogous to patriarchy since it extends to policy. This is semantics for sure but it does bother me how often we run into the limitations of communication. There are so many ways a word can be the best word we have for a concept, but will prime people to immediately dismiss you because it takes several sentences to explain the nuance. How many times have you seen someone mention toxic masculinity and someone says “so you think all masculinity is toxic??” It seriously bugs me, I wish there was a better way.
The term is rotten, get rid of it - this term is no special. many terms become toxic to what you are trying to achieve - get rid of them. Do you still say, "we live in a society"?
Really smart and nice guy, but I feel like he never actually understood what Vaush was saying and kept re-explaining the difference between personal and systemic racism, which we all already understand. I say this in the most respectful way possible, it's sociology brained. Which is very common with super intelligent people on the left.
I think the biggest problem is that he's arguing from the point of an academic(in that he's studying the concept in and of itself) while Vaush is arguing from the perspective of an interlocutor which is about translating academic concepts into a way to convince people to think about issues differently. The edges get filed off a little in translation, but it's easier to get people to jump to the next step than it is to get them to jump to the destination. I think that's why the right is so much better at radicalizing people than the left.
@@Pluveus we already have racism and systemic racism, the redefining only makes it easier to defend minorities when they do shitty things and ontologically separates white people
This is why it's important for us to understand the distinction between systems and people. Both influence each other but acts done on a systemic level are different than acts done on an individual level
I don't think these 2 disagree very much but Vaush understands what a poor rhetorical tool it is to micromanage language in the context of the larger battle against systemic and class based issues, and that begins by using simple language and not developing moral hierarchies to lecture down to the misinformed and propogandized. Of course at some point this point should be addressed and acknowledged by everyone, but don't make these people shut you out because you can't reframe an argument based on context. Believing a race is inherently superior or inferior to another is wrong period. That is the first lesson that should go without saying, and this infighting only helps neoliberals and facists.
No one chooses their skin color so I'd say it's wrong to discriminate against anyone, it doesn't matter if they are punching up or down. Racism is a very irrational prejudice and should be discouraged no matter who you are.
Racism against white people by black people encourages people to forget the real divide in this country, which is class. If class wasn’t an issue, most systemic race issues couldn’t exist. It would still be a massive issue, of course, but it’s difficult to systematically target black people if the majority of them don’t fall into specific economic backgrounds. Things like voter ID laws wouldn’t be as harsh. Address requirements wouldn’t be as much of an issue. Mental health issues would be more easily addressed. Families would be able to stick together more frequently. Education rates would rise. Basically every method of targeting black people without being explicit relies on keeping most of them poor, imprisoned, uneducated, desperate, or mentally ill.
@@JokerDoom People that focus only on race always seem to forget that white people in the US were pretty hateful towards the Irish before they "became" white. Black people are racist towards other black people as "light skin vs dark skin" isn't a concept unique to the US. It's just easier for the US to keep black people filling out the bottom rung while using professional athletes as examples of how "you too can pull yourself up by your bootstraps" propaganda.
@@JokerDoom tbf, class in the original marxist sense also doesn't really exist anymore. Class as a divide between "working class" and "owning class" has largely been dissolved at this point, it's way more about levels of wealth and power now. but since marxist discourse is still largely suppressed everywhere, people don't really get to that realization and still use rhetoric from more than a hundred years ago. It's sad, really.
@@Tacklepig Marx didn’t care about power in itself. Even in an ideal communist society some people will have more power than others whether because they’re better liked, do more socially valued labor, etc. It never is was or should be about power. That is merely the concern of the envious. The concerns are alienation and unjust hierarchy. Doctors have wealth and power but are good and necessary. Landlords have wealth and power but are parasites. The difference is what matters
People like this don't seem to understand that they are creating semantic arguments with the opposition (and infighting) instead of genuinely discussing the issues. When you argue what a word means you haven't actually achieved anything ideologically.
100% this. People are treating the word racism as "he who should not be named" Voldermort. Words are not magic. What matters is what the concept that the word is describing.
How is it that people can still not fathom that arguing semantics is arguing about logic, and meaning? - of course you can achieve ideological goals by arguing what a word means.
@@CynicalBastard you need to lookup why semantics arguments are pointless in nearly every situation. It boils down to how a word is defined and not what actually matters. Think about how many movements get dismantled from within simply by semantics. BLM tried to redefine racism and nobody talked about the issues, just if black people could or couldn't be racist. Reform the police gets renamed defund the police now we argue if it's complete defunding. Gender identity gets shortened to gender now we only argue what gender means instead of whether you should respect them. It's the same semantic garbage everytime that means absolutely nothing in changing what people actually think
The whole "erm actually it's not technically racism" thing is pretty much on the same level as getting pedantic over the definition of "decimate", or "begging the question", or "bug" - technically correct, but largely useless (and more likely deleterious) in the context of conversation with a layperson.
@@SS-xr7jf You are correct, yet I do not think that it is right to use it in that manner. My reasoning is that there are many words for "to destroy", but there is only one word for "to remove one-tenth" (If I am wrong, please enlighten me), and it seems pragmatic to keep them distinct. If I possess a surplus of hammers, I should not use my only wrench to pound a nail, yes?
@@Warsmith_The Regardless of our desires, word use will be what it is. We can all have our pet battles with the world at large about how words are used but being a language prescriptivist is idealism. To borrow a meme. A descriptive definition of a word, how people actually use a word, is truer. Saying Decimiate is the the punishing of every tenth solider by execution is basically just etymology. For example, even saying to destroy 1/10th of something is technically false, its a specific type of punishment for a specific transgression.
@@Warsmith_The yes but language development doesn’t really care about what ideally should be the words definition, no matter how sound your reasoning. It’s only concerned with how it’s used in communication. And just about no one uses the 1/10 destroyed definition unless they are specifically talking about Roman soldiers. And why would they? What context requires you to say exactly 10% of something was destroyed? I’m fairly certain that, without the new definition’s development, the word would simply fall into obsolescence and be forgotten. There’s just not really any utility in that definition outside of the cultural practice that born it in the first place. So both definitions are correct. It’s just situational which applies.
@@Warsmith_The it definitely feels like language is slowly losing all meaning as each word slowly gains all meanings... however, this is just a feeling. i do kind of agree with the specific decimate vs destroy argument though
I think we need to start making distinctions about experiences based on physical location and community, and experiences that are experienced by a certain group across the board. POC can experience racism on a scale depending on what part of the country they live in, what policies are in place, and what kind of people live in that area. Especially when it comes to the different wealth and social classes that POC fall into.
I guess, but near-universally around the globe, the darker skinned you are, the worse you have it, systemically. I mean, being black is less bad in some places? Wow, how nice for them, or something.
I'm only a few minutes into this video but I have a question. Is it always systemic racism when a white person does racism? It seems weird that someone's individual act of racism is systemic if done by a white person and individual if by a black person. Now, I know black people don't really have the institutional power to do much systemic racism, but surely a white person is capable of doing racisms all on their own, individually.
Instictively I'd say it's both personal individual racism and contributing to reinforcing systemic racism. They might not be an 'official' part of the system, but they're helping it.
Personal and systemic racism are two different things that can occur at the same time, doesn't have to be one or the other. One white person being racist against a black person is personal racism, but the cause and consequences of this interaction are part of systemic racism.
from my understanding the societal weight behind the action is the determining factor. like a clear example to me is in jim crow america if a white person called some black guy the n word and told him to get out of his face, technically this is just as racists as if a black person did an equivalent action to a white person but they dont have society behind them. as an individual we dont choose if we have societal weight behind our actions but the fact that it does exists alters the power dynamic behind equal actions. that's how i view it anyway.
It seems like the crux of his argument is that systemic racism and it's history has a uniquely more influential impact on black people's behaviors (more so than any other environmental factors for other people) and therefore should almost always be considered when discussing bad things black people do. I disagree with this, but since our history is like 95% defined by systemic racism, I get why it holds so much power over people's reasoning.
Agreed, It's not a competition. Obsessing over which groups got uniquely fucked over isn't productive. Also the human race hasn't stopped doing genocide. Yemen and Xinjiang should be a reminder that no one is safe.
ya, like i'll be the first to say black people, and basically all minorities, have been railed like a transcontinental railroad in the us but that is still just an environmental factor. like every kkk member joined up not because of there genes but because of their environment in which they were raised. you cant really give this leeway to minority groups w/o saying minority groups are less capable of being aware of how they should act. generally i am a consequentialist but i cant really get behind this idea that "white people are better off so they should be held more accountable". like what is the rational to basically say "white people raised in a kkk environment should be held more accountable than a black separatist who wants to live away from white people whos only individual crinme is being born white?"
This is what happens when you take your identity politics too far in my view and reduce individuals and their experiences to their social group too rigidly.
Having identity politics in the first place is already taking identity politics too far, lol. Individual experiences are way more important than group shit, unless you're talking academic discourse specifically.
somebody's life experience excuses their racism?; utterly amazing stance here. it will get you far. "we're getting lost in semantics here..." -the guy who changes the definition of every other word.
Nah, I'm sorry, Vaush is correct in every point here. This guy does want to be more lenient on minorities entirely because of a history of oppression which is not a good strategy at the individual level. Structural and interpersonal racism is more clear, more consistent, and more effective when talking to a lay person. I really think this guy is just afraid of being called racist or something and has constructed rules to minimize the chance that it happens.
I'm actually reminded of a comment by Zimmerman in his book, "A People's History of the United States", where he argued against the qualifications we make on people by briefly mentioning their atrocities and then expanding on their contributions. It's similar to being quick to qualify individual acts of racism instead of separating them into two separate discussions.
This conversation is why insistent terminology is a red flag for me. It shows that the person hasn't synthesized that information. You should listen to PoC, but you need to think about what they told you. They aren't Noble Savages, they're people.
Systemic racism has its own term specifically to specify its unique form of racism. Systemic racism is an abstract concept of racially based struggles. standard term 'racism' is generally more insular instances, and relates to specifically thinking or treating a race negatively.
the caller seemed to think that there was some fundamental change in understanding racism and its aspects by redefining it as racism=prejudice+power as oppose to understanding racism by understanding history and sociology,
God these types are the most insufferable kind. They're so eager for approval they'll throw the character of literally anyone around them. Its incredible that our side has to even remind anyone that bigotry is bad.
This guy is literally struggling in this discussion because he can't delineate between two concepts because his entire point deprives him of the vocabulary to do so. It's really amazing to see him just steadfastly ignore it.
22:00 they’ve gotten away from point. Because they didn’t start off saying that crime by crime in general is the same for everyone or that people aren’t influenced by poverty to committed. Vaush said that no matter the race of a person who commits a crime, it’s still a hate crime if it was motivated by the victims race.
The idea of racism = prejudice + power does come up in modern writings. It's definitely not a bad definition, but it requires a lot of context to what is being described. Racism itself is broad ideology believing that certain groups of humans have essential qualities that make them fundamentally different and, in many cases, inferior. You don't necessarily have to be in a power position to have a racist idea. You can see this broadly across oppressed groups that can hold bigoted ideas towards members in their own community. I think a better equation would be to say that systemic racism = prejudice + power. The most important lesson to remember is that racism has a long history to what we see now than when it was first introduced broadly around 400-600 years ago. A good book to read on the history of racism is "Racism, Not Race" and "Race - Why are we so Different". I think both books do a great job at explaining this history to anyone that isn't familiar with it. I sure wasn't when I first started reading on this topic.
Prejudice+power is a specific definition that applies SOLELY to institutions that exercise racist power, individuals are not institutions, and as such using the two interchangeably is simply an equivocation fallacy, period, end of conversation.
"I just think I have more empathy for a person of color in a really awful situation, than I do for those who benefit from the structures of power..." This is patronizing dude. It's just saying that you're more permissive towards minorities cause they've been shafted by the system.
So by this persons own logic and by using their robbery example, should not a robbery committed by a black/homeless person not be considered a robbery? Just like racism committed by a black person should not be considered racism. But in their robbery example they still called it a robbery. (Maybe because they know it would sound fucking stupid to change the definition of ”robbery” depending on who commits it, but they have somehow convinced themselves that it makes sense when it comes to racism.)
I think that normie black people also understand racism the way that Vaush uses it and not as racial prejudice+power. I think something we forget in discourse about this is we are always told "listen to black people" in lefty spaces but that's ignoring all the black people not participating in these conversations on Twitter because they are outside touching grass. And I am saying this as a white person who used to agree with the racial prejudice+power definition until I had conversations about racism with my black roommate who constantly complains about the casual racism of black people. Her frustration with microaggressions coming from black people is no less valid than a black person frustrated with microaggressions coming from white people. I think the "racism" and "systemic racism" distinction is simple, explanatory, and, most importantly, understandable to normal people (black and white) that aren't infinitely online.
yep there was a poll only like 10-20% of black people believe “racism= power + prejudice “ pure NONSENSE invented by actual modern day racists and sjws if you will
I really don't understand the obsession with this argument. We literally have the definitions that already explain the differences between racism and the potential nuance in some cases. The prejudice vs racism shit is stupid and just makes people who were inclined to agree with you to start looking at you like you're crazy because you're crying about using an definitionally accurate word. Someone shouts at a white person because they're white = Interpersonal Racism. Someone shouts at a black person because they're black = Interpersonal Racism. The person doing the shouting being far more likely of getting an increased sentence because they're black and not white = Systemic/Institutional Racism. It's not that hard to grasp. This person also doesn't seem to grasp the idea of both being present in a situation, which is funny because he basically explained HOW the definitions easily work via his white privilege example in regards to poor white people. A white person can experience class issues for being poor but can still benefit from white privilege when poor black people can't. A white person can experience Racism directed towards them but they don't have to worry about Systemic/Institutional Racism like black people. It's really that easy, it's completely accurate to the situation, and the distinction doesn't make you look insane to 85% of the country.
about leniency, it's difficult to quantify where to draw the line when it comes to leniency. Should it be determined by a broader macroscopic state or event like systemic racism, enforced classism or terrorism? Or would you look at the sum of an individual's experienced emotional pain and dysfunction? I mean, we do already practice the latter to some extent, it's just that black people simply don't get that treatment from ze system.
The entire point here is that a negative disposition toward a certain race is just wrong. If a group with societal power can cause more harm then that just adds insult to injury. The original point stands. Racism is wrong irregardless of which race holds societal power. Claiming that racism is just prejudice + power makes the left look weak. The intentions of both positions are pure but the outcomes are not. Vaushes position lays the cards on the table and allows for qualification after the fact. The other guys position gives minorities an excuse to just be racist.
Prejudice doesn't mean just racial discrimination. Colloquially racism has meant a hatred for a different group that we can draw some type of social line between. Systemic racism is racism that is both brought about by the systems in which we live and is supported by each individual action that is a long the lines of the current power structure in that system.
I feel it's the obscurity of the issue that is the biggest challenge. People throw out broad, often poorly understood terms like CRT and Systemic Racism without pinning down examples and clear definitions. A comparable analogy of this would be me talking about Neo-Nazis. I'm sure it's in America and I've heard a few random mentions of it here-and-there, maybe read an article once about it, but I can't tell you one solid piece of empirical data concerning Neo-Nazis. I would be the worst person to defend the claim that it is an issue in America. The same is true for the criers of racism in America; it feels like such a second-hand, I-read-something-once topic, regardless of what I believe. Give me data, give me facts. Give me examples so when the topic comes up I can use them as staples of validation rather than appearing to just be gaslighting.
Its hard being on both sides of a conversation like this because I feel like both are really close to agreeing but its always like 1 or 2 things that keep them from coming together. Its frustrating af lol Edit: I love the end of this video so much
I know this video is a few months old, but I just heard a reddit story from a mexican immigrant who was tormented by a ghana immigrant all through elementary school (slurs, being called ugly, KYS, and so much more). The mexican immigrant gets her revenge later in life... but the reason I brought it up, is I wonder what this dude's stuttered justification would be if he heard that?
yeah it’s so incredible usa centric, and, quite literally “black and white thinking”. the idea that racism = prejudice + power makes absolutely no sense unless you’re somewhere with one obviously dominant and strictly separated oppressive group. it claims to be the more sociologically nuanced but it flattens the issue to a comically degree from the perspective of all non americans.
For me, the most interesting part was when Vaush said "nice try with that stunlock bait" and then immediately goes into a discussion on FLCL. It's a really interesting observation on race IMO
If you wanna use the intense definitions you're gonna have to also cite examples that the people youre trying to convince aren't attached to (that they don't identify as being their ingroup). Russia and South America would be good options, as Americans kneejerkedly see them as foreign, other, and so wont have a wall up for the discussion or be on the lookout for you trying to gotchya them. And then much of it would be really easily then transposed onto a WASP context.
This conversation was pretty annoying because it seemed like you were talking past each other. A better case for the person Vaush was debating that black people have more of a history of oppression against them, so racism effects them more. They could have brought up slurs for example and talked about why the n-word is considered more racist than “cracker”
I don't think he was arguing that we should just excuse bad behavior from POC, I thought he had a nuanced approach that acknowledged the history of over policing and biased harsh punishment in the judicial system. Also he was referring to the Vanguard Party at the end there
You must have missed the part where he openly agreed that if a woman throws a knife at her partner unprovoked, that should be treated as less serious than when a man does the same. You're being charitable because you don't want to believe he thinks that, but he admitted it voluntarily.
It's not just conservatives who you lose with this whole "racism is prejudice + power, you can't be racist to white people" regular people, who always vote left, are completely confused by this arbitrary distinction. I've had this argument for like 8 years now, I've heard the arguements over and over and my perspective is very close to Vaush's, I think it's absolutely correct to call interpersonal racism racism when the victim is white. It doesn't devalue the conversation about structual racism AT ALL, and is so western-centric and ignores nations that have different racial dynamics in their systems of government power.
For anyone curious about the "48% of white people opposed to interracial marriage" stat, the sample was Alabama republican party primary voters, which is SUPER not the same as "all white people in America"
To his credit, he clarified that it could have been by state and not nationally
That's a surprisingly low number then
Considering the sample demographic, that's a surprisingly low number
When I heard him say that, I was immediately like there’s no fuckin way 😂
@@Afro-Socialist its not even by state tho, its just 41% of the right voters holding that view, not 41% of the state population
Vaush calling a spade a spade is why I followed him in the first place.
Most other lefties are allergic to true intersectionality, and they play a weird semantics game with race and sex issues. Vaush’s takes can sometimes be pretty bad, but it’s refreshing to see someone on my side who’s willing to put their foot down on bullshit and call it what it is.
I never truly fell down the alt right pipeline, but I definitely picked up a lot of bad ideas specifically because the right were the only people making sense for some issues. Vaush kept me from that.
Exactly. One of the reasons why a sizable portion of normies get sucked into the alt-right vortex is because of the relentless, toxic wokescolding and bad faith argumentation on places like Tumblr that created the environment that to even have a minor disagreement with a person of color or an LGBT person about ANYTHING, it means you have underlying bigotry against throse groups. I've always rejected those types of perscriptive arguments which is why I feel that Vaush gave a voice to the voiceless. People who have left wing ideas and are dead set against the right, but are against toxicity in the left.
What’s something you think he has a bad take on? I tend to agree with him on most things but i like hearing the disagreements bc i wanna make sure i actually agree and am not just doing it blindly
@@lzmunch he doesn't hate grass enough
@@lzmunch vaush has literally never been wrong
@@lzmunch his deffenition of constitutional monarchy is wrong. But other than that, the man has very few L's. I find myself agreeing with his points like 99% of the time.
Racism and systemic racism is FAR better way of discussing racism than the whole "prejudice + power", all that does is excuse people of colour to be racist or play it down badly.
Yes it's important to distinguish Systemic Racism from Personal Racism.
"People of color" can not be racist.
Expressing frustration in a racist system is not "racist"...that is such a Rightwing thing to say.
@@Based_Proletariat
Racism:prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Please rethink your life and learn to bite the bullet that people of color can be racists.
Just ask an asian how they think of black people.
Black republicans how they think of mexicans.
@@Based_Proletariat Expressing frustration with whomst?
@@manjackson2772
Who runs the system?
This guy has the same energy as people who see others explaining how the patriarchy can also hurt men, only to point and laugh and say "well you made the system, so you can't complain". I know it's not a perfect analogy, just gives the same vibes
Uncannily accurate
Its this removal of the individual, a system generalises, and they just assert whichever system they like is the reason for everything.
Nah it tracks I think you nailed it
makes sense to me. it might not be "perfect" but what analogy is?
This is extremely important because “men” broadly didn’t actually make the patriarchy. Rich, wealthy, land-owning white men in power made that system. It (sort of) benefits all men, but the vast majority of men had no say in the matter.
vaush was the first leftie I could stand to actually listen to when I was in my alt right arc. he really does have a great way with his words to be able to reach across the aisle. thank you Vaush for saving me from that brain rot
Same except just cringe anti feminist arc
"Alt right" = lower taxes and slightly conservative views 😂
@@niceguy2527 bruh
I'll go ahead and say he grabbed me when I was in my "enlightened centrist/all sides bad" phase. It's hard to admit that sometimes one side is worse than the other, even if they seem the same on the surface, because it challenges us to actually form opinions and even an identity around them instead of just trying to act better than and above it all by declaring everyone else is stupid or extremist for being present in anything.
I appreciate Vaush's clarity. I don't fully agree with everything that he says or the way he says it, but most of what he says is expressed such that I don't really have to do much guesswork determining what his position really is and I can tell why he chooses to speak the way he does.
It is extremely important to call people out no matter their status. Vaush was the person who drew me away from being a disaffected former conservative who mostly consumed dry factual analysis because he is a lefty who doesn't shy away from calling people dumbfucks just because there are sociological explanations of their behaviors.
I feel one of the most coherent criticisms the right has ever made of the modern progressive left is our use of sociology, more leftists need to understand that explaining behavior is not the same as excusing it
EDIT: I realize I may have come off as dismissive of sociology; I'm not, it's an incredibly powerful frame of analysis for understanding the world. But sociology's purvue is explaining behavior, not justifying it. That is a more succinct summation of my position
As someone with a minor in social sciences, it felt really weird to learn during the Anti-SJW era that while the right absolutely misunderstood sociology, the activists and online lefties bigots used as the face of progressivism did as well.
Ever since online activism appeared as we know it, there has been groups among marginalized people who took some sociological ideas and used it as the basis for their arguments, but with none of the deeper understanding and contextual nuance that the academics who actually find that term useful have. A lot of sociological concept aren't meant to be taken as facts, they are lens of analysis that are purposefuly limited, meant to be used in a certain context and with a nuanced understanding of sociological analysis that is usually absent in online activist circles.
Furthermore, sociology isn't without it's inner divisions, and even within progressive academics movements there are disagreements regarding the usefulness and validity of certain concepts (which is also why much of the terms and arguments used by wokescolds become antiquated within academia after just a few years. Academia is not immune to trends, nor areprogressive movements to bad ideas, which thankfully rarely last).
What I like about Vaush is that he is one of the few prominent online leftists who actually knows how to approach this sort of sociology. He can recognize this rethoric for what it is, a misuse or misunderstanding of sociology and political science. Half of his criticism of other "lefties" boils down to that.
Here's the catch, though. Some of the few things I disagree with Vaush on are the idea that shame is a good way to regulate social behavior, or that it's productive to see people as "bad". You can still call them dumb if they're doing that in a debate, but that isn't an argument for broader social utility.
See, the thing is, in behavioral psychology it's known that negative reinforcement is a bad way of bringing about good outcomes, and not even very good at preventing bad ones. Behaviors are caused by various factors intersecting - generally not a persistent notion of "character", and absolutely not some moral essence or nature. Negative reinforcement doesn't actually resolve the underlying causes of a bad (harmful, in this case) behavior, nor does it teach better behavior. It can't do that. Telling someone what not to do isn't the same as telling them what to do because life isn't a simple set of binaries. What it does is repress the behavior - temporarily bury it out of sight - but what happens later is that that behavior can arise again involuntarily, and generally in more harmful ways. The real way to resolve a harmful behavior is to patiently and critically identify the underlying causes and address them, while also providing clear and consistent guidance toward healthier behaviors.
As an example, bringing in sociology, one of the main causes of petty food theft would be poverty-induced hunger. Punishing the theft does nothing to resolve the issue - the thief is still hungry, and still unable to get food legally. So what it teaches isn't not to steal - it's not to get caught stealing, because if you still have to eat, in that situation it's often difficult if not impossible to see any alternative other than starving, or trying one's luck begging in a culture that treats beggars as subhuman, or actually living in inhumane conditions such as risking illness dumpster diving for scraps. That doesn't make the stealing part "good". It explains but doesn't morally justify the behavior. But it does reveal that the issue isn't one person being Bad, but rather that there is a systemic condition that brings about harmful behaviors.
So, personally, I think moralizing about individuals is inadvisable simply because it's useless at solving problems. We should consider tactics like fear, guilt, and shame to be exactly what they are: Quick, dirty, and ineffective band-aids to complex problems. Because historically and behaviorally, that's exactly what they've always been. The use of them for social regulation originated as a shortcut to keeping people in line without having to undertake the long, brutally difficult process of addressing widespread systemic issues, and cultural inertia basically just maintained the same patterns of behavior long after they ceased being useful.
Vaush actually recognizes this point in relation to BLM and riots. Riots aren't "good". People shouldn't do them. But framing the narrative as one of blaming and morally judging rioters as people is unhelpful and actively counterproductive. What riots are is "the voice of the unheard" - they're what happens when enough people for enough time are cornered, made to believe that they have no other option but to lash out, because any other avenue hasn't worked. So the riot itself is a bad thing, but rioters are not "bad people". Rather, they're broken and hurt, the results of a broken and hurtful system. So fixing the problem requires a process of figuring out what made them happen and addressing that, and positively reinforcing better behaviors such as peaceful but firm protest. The same applies to basically all other social issues.
In the moment, if someone is being a dipshit and doubling down, yeah, you can call it out. But it won't solve any problems in a real sense. It can draw attention, it can get a situation temporarily under control, but it won't fix the underlying issue. It's good spectacle and theatrics though.
Half way through & the best this guy came up with is the person of African descent version of Girl boss. Then did identity politics 101 I can't be racist because my [insert person] is [insert ethnic minority] Jesus fucking Christ. 😂
@Captain Ken That's my point. It's not about blame. Blame and moral judgment don't really help. They offer gratification for the ego of the one doing the judging, but very little else.
@@FelisImpurrator You missed Ken's point that they don't understand _why_ someone would riot instead of just being the better man.
You answered "Why blame them?" when Ken's question seems to have been, "Why do they choose anger and violence?"
(There was a typo in the last seentence, "so, I can't entirely [...]", that you might have parsed as "can".)
Man is literally told he's holding a double standard and isn't being fair in judging people's mindsets and my guy just responds with "I don't care." Smh this is what makes us look bad
No, not being solid and bending to the right is what makes the left look bad.
@@Based_Proletariat How come you are so pathetic that you see teaching people as "bending". This ego is completely worthless.
@@Based_Proletariat no one is bending to the right, a ton of libs and apolitical people also don't use this definition, and if you think being efficient at talking to them is a waste of time, you're lost
@@Based_Proletariat You are racist and patronising
@@bobybot9320
Whatever helps sleep better,
talk about Jimmy Doreknob
pandering to the right, that kind of attitude and rhetoric panders to the right and makes them feel like their point of view is validated by saying that kind of garbage.
The "left" might as well dissolve
and join the right if that the kind of mentality that's going to be operated on.
He says he's not excusing bad behaviour by poc's, but subconsciously I think that's exactly what he's doing.
Yep exactly what he’s doing
You could use his same rationality to come to the conclusion that women can’t sexually assault people because we’re a sexually oppressed class
Dude, it is SO patronizing to not call out black people when they are racist. I’m a mixed black person so maybe this guy Vaush is talking about might listen to me. This guy sounds racist to me. Seems like he thinks black people are just traumatized puppets unable to be individuals. I’m not offended anymore because the left seems to always do this. I appreciate Vaush’s perspective and respect him for standing up to this nonsense.
What a crock of crap.
I'm also mixed race and my black dad sometimes slides into the mindset of the guy Vaush debated and it pisses me off. I can't say it ever offended me personally coming from the left at large, but it did seem kind of dismissive and like it was ignoring the real problem (that being the "original sin" issue Vaush brought up)
"I’m not offended anymore because the left seems to always do this." really? Which "left" - who do you mean?
Most of the time when I hear a leftist say something like "its not racism is there is systemic power behind it" they dont go for the take this guy has where you damage controls a crime. I would say treating black people inferior in this way is not actually the common, well, moreso in center and definately right wing areas, but using diffeent BS logic.
@@Based_Proletariat schizo?
kinda crazy how vaush basically said “so if a white person stabbed someone you would say it was bad, but if a black person stabbed someone it would be okay because history?” and the guest just “noooo, i’m not being patronizing, i’m just saying black people can’t make their own decisions because of their shared history!”
i’m white, so probably a lot of lefties would go “how dare you talk about this with your privilege” but vaush literally sounds to me like “if white people do a bad, its bad, and if black people do a bad, its a bad… right?”
We should be very tactical when talking about racism
I think you mean tactful.
Tactical racism... Activated.
@@TrueHylianKnight it’s a joke for long time viewers. They meant tactical.
We should call out racism and explain systematic racism.
This is the bigotry of low expectations. If socioeconomic factors influenced a person of African descent to do something deemed unethical then you can not then remove the socioeconomic factors that influenced a person of European descent to do something deemed unethical. You can acknowledge the structural factors, seek to change them and hold the individual accountability all at the same time. Thus we need to call out all interpersonal racism.
I think of "Racism" as an umbrella term for both "systemic racism" and "inter-personal racism". You can say something is "racist" and context should convey which one you mean, but if it doesn't you can be more specific by saying it's "systemically racist" or "inter-personally racist". "inter-personal racism" is *probably* the more common to be mentioned within a normal conversation and should in my opinion be the default/primary definition for "racism".
Interpersonal racism is much less impactful than system racism tho?
Getting called the n-word sucks, but being discriminated against in regards to quotes on homes, mistreated by police, decades of family equity gaps, that’s the shit that crushes people.
Racism, to me, connotes something systemic.
Interpersonal racism is more like prejudice.
@@EroticInferno My *opinion* when it comes to linguistics the definition that occurs more often in *normal* conversation (not *lefty* conversations) will become the primary/default definition of a word.
In this case I think it's the inter-personal definition that's the more frequent in everyday conversation.
I could of course be wrong as I've not been part of every conversation ever about racism, and cannot make an irrefutable statement about the commonality of either definition in a conversation. It's but an assumption grounded in past experience.
I think that inter-personal racism is both under the umbrella of the *concept* of prejudice *and* the *word* "racism", they don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think both definitions of the *word* are part of the *concept* of racism though. I hope you understand what I'm trying to convey. :)
@@EroticInferno Just wanted to say that I do understand and respect your point of view though.
@@EroticInferno lmao black people do not just treat the N word as “well that sucks”.
there is only systemic racism
Only 20 minutes in, but this sounds like another debate where Vaush is concerned about converting more people to the left, and the guest cares more about ideological purity.
They LOOK like they care about ideological purity, but underneath that veneer they're just another racist, except a more insidious and damaging kind
The edge lords won’t stop being honest.
We keep trying to argue in bad faith to avoid providing bigots a vehicle, but them dang edge lord keep trying to say evidence of lies is a even better vehicle.
Even on the merits of ideological purity, the guest is still wrong. As Vaush said, the "racism=prejudice+power" is a very recent academic phenomenon that's not even adopted by everyone.
This dude seemed to be essentialising race issues, treating races like a monolith, despite being mixed race himself...
@@ParisofNowhere Is... Is 12 years ago very recent in academia years????
A bit facetious, but also serious: I met that concept 12 years ago on LJ and it looked pretty well-established by then, and mostly people just went "oh, makes sense" instead of debating it with logic.
this guy is the posterboy of people regurgitating concepts they agree with but don't fully understand. He keeps repeating himself with the same rebuttal that has nothing to do with what Vaush just said.
exactly
Missed the opportunity to use the schwarzenegger and Carl Wheathers handshake meme
Too true.
*Carl Wheezer
My post was deleted. Lulz. I was quoting a line from that scene.
Im like 72.523% sure Vaush has already used this meme. I couldnt find where though.
@@alliesakat Carl wheezer and Carl Weathers shaking hands sounds like a good picture
Idk, I think I’d rather bring over 100 conservatives into the left with a slightly incorrect definition than turn off 100 conservatives with a more correct definition. Using Vaush’s language isn’t pandering to them or being complicit in their racism, it’s meeting them where they’re at. I’ve always considered Vaush a “gateway leftie” so just let him be that.
edit: just wanted to add that these conversations always make me feel like we’re in a sinking ship and there’s a bunch of people trying to argue about what to call the hole in the side. Let’s fix the hole first AND THEN decide what to call it cus if the ship sinks then it won’t really matter will it?
You misspelled a word
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper What is your point?
Haven't watched anything yet but i think the point is that the incorrect definition might negatively impact your analysis in the long run and it might waste recourses of well meaning people or drive people away too in the long run because you are effectively setting up a strawman that they then take down and think that's all there is to it. Then again no introductory piece should be like dense academic material with extra jargon if you want to attract people.
So you would have to find a balance and it's probably context dependant.
That said again i haven't watched anything and your comment doesn't really say what the problem is with the language so yeah idk.
Edit: The first thirty minutes could easily be avoided by something like:
Vaush: So if you see someone being abusive you can point at their broken home but you would still call it internalised abuse right? You would recognize that it is abuse even if it is a specific kind of abuse.
Other guy, (i assume): yes of course
Vaush: replace abuse with racism
@@kkounal974 he misspelled a word
@@kkounal974 There are multiple definitions of racism in dictionaries, none are the one-true definition. Language is ambiguous. The definition that most people think of when they hear the word "racism" is not the systemic one, and you should generally tailor your language to your audience. Arguments over semantics are annoying and unproductive.
why can't we just acknowledge that you can be racist towards white people, but that that racism doesn't have the same weight because of societal, historical, and systemic circumstances. as a black person, it is agonizing seeing people literally use racist talking points to try and defend us. they're living in ideological echo chambers while reinforcing racist talking points through a progressive lens.
I guess I'm not so agonized because the racial anguish I see of black people, and wanting to not entertain the smugness of those white supremacist too ready to be dismissive of that anguish trump semantics for me.
I'm not saying treat black people with kiddie gloves, but your intent behind prioritizing their punishment for the sake of "fairness" when it is not fair, I find suspicious and upholds white supremacist ideals. I don't feel it reinforces racist talking points to reconsider black indiscretions because that implies that black people inherently get the benefit of the doubt, when the opposite still holds true in a white supremacist society. So what are you trying to accomplish with this scrutiny? Equality in judgment instead of equity? Then allow the system to continue to self-operate, then you will surely get your wish and that black person will no doubt get punished, don't worry. Black people at large are not being "let off the hook" here. And the paranoia that they will screams too much of "white replacement" (of vindication) and coddling white fragility to me.
I don't really care if a bigot can't keep up with compartmentalizing the difference. They didn't care to genuinely create a distinction anyway, did they? So I'm not sympathetic to their frustration.
As long as we operate in a white supremacist society, I have to wonder why it is more important to you to achieve equality in scrutiny and not equity in said scrutiny, and think you won't continue to perpetuate white supremacist ideals of shining a light on black indiscretions disproportionately and to conveniently disregard white ones. Consider the over-justification of criminalizing blue-collar crime compared to white-collar crime. One is considered more inherently "bad" than the other, when it just so happens that minorities commit more than the other. Awfully convenient, and I don't believe in feeding that narrative.
It's people like him who made me conservative in the first place. They're so fucking annoying with all the sementaics and I used to call ALL of it bullshit. Obviously there's systemic racism but the way this guy tries to tackle it does so much harm for his own people vs if he just didn't say anything. This kind of language thrives in an echo chamber which is probably why he's so used to talking like this.
You have said absolutely nothing here
@@pinkrimmedazureeyes He said that pedantically policing language use turns people away from your cause.
Like another comment said "This guy can justify his girlfriend cheating on him." Why can't he say an action is racist and then delve deep into why how and when? Maybe he feels like racist is a fundamental characteristic of a bad person, while Vaush sees it as a self defeating ideology and hierarchical system?
As in: If your partner cheated on you then they are unfaithful and a cheater. As for whether or not your behaviour and action, plus gender dynamics contributed to it, that is another aspect/ topic to discuss.
I'm not defending this guy specifically, but the general tendency. It's interesting to me that you used to think "It's all BS." In this case calling interpersonal racism "prejudice" or something else and calling systemic racism "racism" is too hard for people to understand, but expecting them to parse the difference between "systemic" and "interpersonal" isn't? My read of your comment, and Vaush's rhetoric here, is that we need to simplify as much as possible political discussions. I think this leads to a danger of anti-intellectualism. I think people who are serious above engaging in trying to understand sociological concepts know that it's complicated, and are willing to put in the effort to learn.
@@JebeckyGranjola the contention is saying that black racism is somehow not racism. By colloquial use, it is.
Shutting our ears and saying that black people can't be racist while insisting on hyperspecific terminology does not help us.
Do we want to be a weird book club, or a political movement?
I'm at 16:22 and I feel like what's happening is this person is essentializing racism. To them, "racism" isn't some simple discription of a certain kind of harmful action, it's a character trait. So it feels really wrong to use that word for marginalized people who don't benefit from a racist society in any way. A person of color can do "bad things pertaining to race" but they can never be "A RACIST" because it feels like you're saying something about their essential character.
And that's why their argument is trash and they don't actually know what racism is
And that would make sense if by racism they mean "the belief in the existence of disparate human races that are in conflict with each other". Which is what I think racism is. But in that case, saying that a minority can't be racist is wrong. They simply subscribe to a different kind of racism, a less successful one with next to no actual power. Yeah, white supremacy is much more ubiquitous and codified in US society, it has structures propping it up while the black guy screaming fuck whitey has himself and little else and that's a very relevant difference that you can point out without getting swamped in these stupid semantics discussions.
But black people can gain something from racism. Obviously it's nothing in the comparison to the systematic gain white people enjoy but on a personal level a racist black person might gain respect in their local group. After all they're not afraid to give back what they received from the whites. They're so bold and brave~
That's why racism among black people exists even tho it's seemingly pointless
...no one "benefits from a racist society in any way".
No one.
Not even the people the bias is in favor of.
History has shown this, studies have shown this. The idea that white people somehow "benefit" from systemic racism just because they're not actively damaged by it as much is in itself also a racist one. Less diversity, for example, is an inherently negative impact on society that's also affecting white people.
That's also why I think the term "white privilige" is bad framing - you don't really get any privileges from being white, you just get to NOT be affected by all the bad stuff that affects POC. The term itself is almost whitewashing the issue, tbh.
@@Tacklepig Well, minus times minus equals plus. In a competitive society where being better off than your competition makes it so you'll be better off in the absolute sense in the long run that is the case - of course, on a longer timescaleliving in such a society is an inherent negative, but you have to zoom out even more from the issue.
“I don’t condone this behavior…but I will do apologetics for it.”
Vaush can't be racist he's Irish only the British till they return the 6 counties
"Im not Rightwing, but I like to make Rightwing arguments"
@@Based_Proletariat making excuses for racism seems pretty rightwing to me
@@Based_Proletariat how is the “head in the sand” method working for you? Do you think you can convince anyone who has at any point been victimized on the basis of their race with your rhetoric?
@@bullydwilliams6785
You seem triggered.
Honestly, the power + prejudice thing is perfectly fine when discussing systemic racism between people with a mutual understanding on the issue, but from personal experience it usually just leads to conservatives shotgun blasting eighty hypotheticals borne straight from their persecution complex about a black guy with a store discriminating against white people and going "So therefore minorities CAN be racist", followed by accudations that you're defending racists because you want to discriminate against white people. It's honestly just a massive time saver to just say that racism from black people is racist rather to fingerwag and say "ah, ah, ah! *technically* it's not racism". You're still right.
its a interesting academic discussion, like how eating meat is equivalent to beatiality. like it may be an interesting topic, but not a political slogan, like please tell this guy to touch grass
You know, a lot of bullshit could have been avoided by just saying "systemic racism is racism+power", and it would mean the same goddamn thing.
@@PropheticShadeZ Eh. Vegan deontology makes a lot less sense. I wouldn't equate it.
A. A. A. Aaaaa.!
@@FelisImpurrator Oh! I never even thought of that. Good one
I don't think the definition of racism should be "prejudice based on race" just to get conservatives over... I think that's simply rhe correct definition of racism, period. The hand wringing over making the definiton more "woke" is just stupid and causes more issues than it solves.
but it's not just conservatives though, a shit ton of young apolitical people, or even moderate progressives use that definition, cause it's the one used commonly for decades, why try to change it when it makes it extremely easy to make progressives look terrible with this?
@@bobybot9320 my point exactly. It's kind of stupid to try and change the definition when the one we have already serves it's purpose
Precisely. I have always learnt that racism is simply prejudice based on race. I have no idea where this "racism = prejudice + power" definition came about, if anything it should be discrimination = prejudice + power.
@@emilchan5379 I can tell you where it came about. For a while now, it's culturally accepted that racism is bad. But some racists who hate white people don't want feel like they are bad, so they try to change the definition of racism so that they won't fall under that umbrella. It's literally just this, and it's absolutely pathetic.
Honestly, this debate is a good example of why I like Vaush - he is not afraid of calling out other leftists on the dumb stuff they are saying. Because while I was never fully on the right, it was rhetoric like the caller's that prevented me from moving left and why I remained an "enlightened centrist" for a very long time until I found Vaush.
The problem is that many leftists, like this caller, don't realise there is a difference between interpersonal racism and systemic racism. Racism is simply the umbrella term for both interpersonal racism and systemic racism. By narrowly defining all racism as prejudice + power, you are at best ignoring the fact that personal racism does exist, and at worst you are excusing minorities for holding bigoted views. Racism is simply prejudice based on race, that's it. Power might be required for systemic racism, but it is not necessary for interpersonal racism.
Also just because there is a explanation for why someone might be racist doesn't mean they aren't actually being racist, or that their racism is justified. For all their talk about intersectionality, far too often leftists don't actually embrace it, because that would require acknowledging that it is possible for minority groups to be bigoted against other groups. Instead they would rather engage in idpol and play semantics. I guarantee you, if you were to talk to any lay person not in an leftist echo chamber about racism, they aren't going to define it as this caller did.
I hate the fake-intersectionalists, jfc do I hate them. I want to upend a pan of cold plain spaghetti on their heads.
Yeah, it's _hard_ to account for it, 'cause then you need to learn enough about _both_ intersecting subjects to figure out if it's bidirectional or not, if and how bad the power imbalance is, and then start untangling shit to figure out what you have to call out on what side and how to approach it-- and if _you_ have privilege you also need to check that and see if you're being biased...
It's a nightmare unraveled yarn ball but that's not an excuse to give up and just say "it exists!" and use it when convenient.
Stop justifying prejudice on the part of minorities. That's what you're doing, full stop. I hate this conversation, and that it has to be had so many times.
The guest is being essentialist. He denies minorities agency and that's why he believes they can't be racist. It's pretty disgusting behavior, tbh.
Holy shit. This guy is okay with black separatism and doesn't think the USSR was fascist?
@@zacheryeckard3051 I didn't get to that part yet . . . . But I'm not surprised, Truly one irrational belief leads to another.
@Zachery Eckard
Fun fact: USSR also had strange ideas about race and ethnicity. Like they made Poland basically an ethnostate. You can't have ethnic tensions between Poles and Ukrainians (and Germans, and Jewish people) if they don't live next to each other, right? Well, now we have deal with those unresolved tensions once again. Thank God most of the people who remember the Bad Things which happened during WWII are dead
Some of you so called lefties are mad sus. So of y'all belong on Steven Crowder or Fox News comment section.
Malcom X discussed similar in his book, he said when a high profile crime committed by a white person it would be blamed on society, the parents or the neighborhood/social conditions they grew up in, but when a black person committed crime it was an entire problem with the black community and it was affecting all of race relations and those good whites were really supportive of improving the race relations are now going to be skeptical because of this story.
When my guess is in reality one should always take in consideration those conditions but apply them equally, and call a spade a spade when bigotry is displayed, if one wants to have a deeper dive then one can do that but not an excuses to talk down any crime.
I feel like I botched Malcolm‘s words but hopefully that made sense.
Another example is addiction. People who are addicts have a different brain function then a non addict who also is committing a crime, that’s not shaming addicts that’s just science, they more inclined to ignore social norms and laws, therefore imo, and sometimes laws or outcomes try to reflect this, the addict is given a different sentence to a degree or is more focused on treatment and recovery (as most crimes should be treated in a way) compared to just a random thief who’s robbing for money or even fun.
You can say people who grew up poor and or POC, could also affect nature of why they committed crime which can connect to treatment without ignoring any harm was done, just go about treatment differently.
I wonder if the guest would agree with this comparison, to wrap it up A supremacist Jewish black Israelite who commits a crime should have a different discussion and understanding compared to a white nationalist who commits a crime, now if that crime really hurt other people and there should be punishment and rehabilitation, however the black Jew should have a different form of recovery because of their life conditions and experiences than the white supremacists in America should get, they should both have resources thrown at them to make them a more tolerated open minded individual to help us build civilization, but how you go about it should be differently depending on how they live and what they’ve experienced.
@@Kalel1k which book is this brother?
@@valloyola
Autobiography of Malcolm X
By Alex Haley
@@Based_Proletariat thank you
@@valloyola
You're welcome
The guy literally said he doesn't care. That's pretty much the summary. You use terms that don't work outside the bubble. But it doesn't matter.
If I need half a page of additional explanations for a definition and it can also very easily be used against me by political opponents, it is not clever.
Lots of online community politcal and non have there own language and words think the point is just to show what one you belong to
@@daraghokane4236 On the left in general, it's almost a distinction to use language that normal people don't understand as much as possible. When solidarity is mentioned here, only the oppressed groups are meant. Linking up with mainstream society is something like betrayal. If you point out that it doesn't work, then, as in this conversation, there is a reference to morality. It has to work that way because it's morally nicer that way.
About half of the ammunition used by the right against the left relates to comical word constructions
@@Vernichterlein the brony community handled making up words better bro hoof for fist bump everypony instead of everybody.
@@Vernichterlein the right will turn anything benign into conspiracy. this isn't the argument you think it is.
Not sure if Vaush is going to stream today or not. I know he was up pretty late last night. 😣
What were you two doing 😳
Vaush needs to do more meth
@@elkosins1686 🐎
@@elkosins1686 I forced him to record the canvasing ad.
ibs?
As an Asian guy, this guys is probably the type of tell me that when black people do hate crimes against Asians is not racially motivated but rather because they are poor or some other excuse.
Yeah let's ignore all the Anti-Black sentiment in the Asian community
and all the Asians that have committed hate crimes against Black people...I haven't forgotten about the Korean store clerk that shot Latasha Harlins assuming she was going to steal a bottle of juice.
Get bent.
Precisely, there were instances of hate crimes against Asians by blacks due to covid misinfo and paranoia. According to this guy those were not hate crimes.
“Well you see, that's just class conflict expressed through prejudice, that's not racism though :^) ”- this guy probably
This is the bigotry of low expectations. If socioeconomic factors influenced a person of African descent to do something deemed unethical then you can not then remove the socioeconomic factors that influenced a person of European descent to do something deemed unethical. You can acknowledge the structural factors, seek to change them and hold the individual accountable all at the same time. Thus we need to call out all interpersonal racism.
Isn't the conclusion the opposite? If all behavior is influenced socioeconomical, then there is no interpersonal racism, it's all systemic.
@@JebeckyGranjola But all behavior is not explained socioeconomically. Some poor people steal to survive but some in a similar situation might resort to panhandling instead. You cannot absolve the former without equivocating his actions with the latter which was clearly more ethical.
@Steven Clark I'm not really following here, especially that last sentence. My intuition is to say that they are equivocal in regards to thier motivations. Isn't that what we're talking about here, thier motivation for behavior, not the behavior itself? Honestly, unless we are talking some kind of evo psych, I do think that all behavior is socioeconomic. Even within an interpersonal relationship, the form of that relationship is socially contingent. How could it be otherwise?
7:31 ur "average person of color" can definitely Definitely tell a racist from a non racist also can we stop just doing this power plus prejudice thing it It makes 0 sense to me And many other people I myself have plenty of racist family members who actually hate white people because they're white and they have it better and benefit from the very system... As I understand it my personal opinion is racism begets more racism ist racism regardless if the people in power are being racist or the people without power. racism is racism and it's bullshit There is no power plus prejudice
🗑️
@@Based_Proletariat 🗑️
An hour of "um actually" and splitting hairs. This guy has no concept of how conversational language works, not every discussion about racism is going to be a deep dive into the structure of racism. Sometimes you see a racist thing and just call it racist, we all know what's being said.
Hey, this guy doesn't think every conversation on racism should be a deep dive into the structure of racism. Only when black people are racist.
@@Cyrinil142 kek
is there something about "ism" that inherently means "systemic"? This seems like more of a semantic argument than a moral one.
No there really isn’t any “ISM” that really inherently means systematic
Nope, people just suck at differentiating academic discourse from real-life stuff.
You tend to focus only on the systemic in academic discourse because the interpersonal aspect is really only anecdotal, and thus doesn't offer valid data for discussion. That's why it's often excluded from the conversation, and why in academic circles, the "ism" is often only defined as systemic.
But on an interpersonal, individual level, it's really hard to actually grasp the systemic stuff, because it's not REALLY real - it's a statistical trend, it's not really something you experience directly. Individuals experience individual things, not systemic ones.
I'm justifiably angry, is not a defense for Fckd up behavior
That's easy for you to say.
"Trauma doesn't justify your bigotry" - ContraPoints to JK Rowling
100% this.
@@Based_ProletariatEasy cause it's right
Vuwowsh slipped a "convo" under our noses as a "debate" and thought we wouldn't notice. WE HAVE NOTICED, VUUWSCH't.
I sometimes get into a similar disagreement with my feminist friends because I don't really use the term "patriarchy." I find much more success talking to people using "societal gender norms" or something. I've spoken to a lot of dudes about challenges women face in society along with how societal gender roles can hurt men as well.
Some guys feel attacked when they hear the term "patriarchy" as if they were being personally attacked. I'm not going to suggest anyone else stop using the term, I've just personally found it easier to talk to conservatives and anti-sjw in my own life without using that term.
This is really a thing. Many guys I've talked to agreed to pretty much every problem that partiarchy has brought upon men but as soon as I bring the term patriarchy into the conversation, the immediately became antagonistic or at least skeptical. Maybe the term is just rotten, I don't know.
Uh I never realized that, but I see what you mean. As sadly one of the weaknesses of feminism in reaching men is that some its language... makes men feel like feminism blames men for everything wrong, when it’s more a societal fault. I think I too will try to more consciously use “societal gender roles” instead of patriarchy when talking about it.
I'm torn because on the one hand I agree that patriarchy isn't the best for it, since the concept we refer to as patriarchy certainly doesn't benefit the majority of men. On the other hand I don't think describing it as gender norms is fully analogous to patriarchy since it extends to policy.
This is semantics for sure but it does bother me how often we run into the limitations of communication. There are so many ways a word can be the best word we have for a concept, but will prime people to immediately dismiss you because it takes several sentences to explain the nuance. How many times have you seen someone mention toxic masculinity and someone says “so you think all masculinity is toxic??” It seriously bugs me, I wish there was a better way.
The term is rotten, get rid of it - this term is no special. many terms become toxic to what you are trying to achieve - get rid of them.
Do you still say, "we live in a society"?
This guy did the "I agree, BUT" waaay too often, pretty aggravating tbh.
Really smart and nice guy, but I feel like he never actually understood what Vaush was saying and kept re-explaining the difference between personal and systemic racism, which we all already understand.
I say this in the most respectful way possible, it's sociology brained. Which is very common with super intelligent people on the left.
I think the biggest problem is that he's arguing from the point of an academic(in that he's studying the concept in and of itself) while Vaush is arguing from the perspective of an interlocutor which is about translating academic concepts into a way to convince people to think about issues differently. The edges get filed off a little in translation, but it's easier to get people to jump to the next step than it is to get them to jump to the destination. I think that's why the right is so much better at radicalizing people than the left.
You're being patronizing by calling a colored person nice
i’m confused? i’m assuming you’re referring to the other guy but isnt Vaush also sociology brained?
@@Pluveus we already have racism and systemic racism, the redefining only makes it easier to defend minorities when they do shitty things and ontologically separates white people
He may be nice, but he ain't smart
This is why it's important for us to understand the distinction between systems and people. Both influence each other but acts done on a systemic level are different than acts done on an individual level
I don't think these 2 disagree very much but Vaush understands what a poor rhetorical tool it is to micromanage language in the context of the larger battle against systemic and class based issues, and that begins by using simple language and not developing moral hierarchies to lecture down to the misinformed and propogandized. Of course at some point this point should be addressed and acknowledged by everyone, but don't make these people shut you out because you can't reframe an argument based on context. Believing a race is inherently superior or inferior to another is wrong period. That is the first lesson that should go without saying, and this infighting only helps neoliberals and facists.
No one chooses their skin color so I'd say it's wrong to discriminate against anyone, it doesn't matter if they are punching up or down. Racism is a very irrational prejudice and should be discouraged no matter who you are.
Racism against white people by black people encourages people to forget the real divide in this country, which is class. If class wasn’t an issue, most systemic race issues couldn’t exist.
It would still be a massive issue, of course, but it’s difficult to systematically target black people if the majority of them don’t fall into specific economic backgrounds. Things like voter ID laws wouldn’t be as harsh. Address requirements wouldn’t be as much of an issue. Mental health issues would be more easily addressed. Families would be able to stick together more frequently. Education rates would rise. Basically every method of targeting black people without being explicit relies on keeping most of them poor, imprisoned, uneducated, desperate, or mentally ill.
@@JokerDoom People that focus only on race always seem to forget that white people in the US were pretty hateful towards the Irish before they "became" white. Black people are racist towards other black people as "light skin vs dark skin" isn't a concept unique to the US. It's just easier for the US to keep black people filling out the bottom rung while using professional athletes as examples of how "you too can pull yourself up by your bootstraps" propaganda.
@@JokerDoom tbf, class in the original marxist sense also doesn't really exist anymore. Class as a divide between "working class" and "owning class" has largely been dissolved at this point, it's way more about levels of wealth and power now.
but since marxist discourse is still largely suppressed everywhere, people don't really get to that realization and still use rhetoric from more than a hundred years ago. It's sad, really.
@@Tacklepig Marx didn’t care about power in itself. Even in an ideal communist society some people will have more power than others whether because they’re better liked, do more socially valued labor, etc. It never is was or should be about power. That is merely the concern of the envious. The concerns are alienation and unjust hierarchy. Doctors have wealth and power but are good and necessary. Landlords have wealth and power but are parasites. The difference is what matters
@@andyrihn1But ultimately, unequal wealth and political power IS unjust and right wing.
People like this don't seem to understand that they are creating semantic arguments with the opposition (and infighting) instead of genuinely discussing the issues. When you argue what a word means you haven't actually achieved anything ideologically.
100% this. People are treating the word racism as "he who should not be named" Voldermort. Words are not magic. What matters is what the concept that the word is describing.
How is it that people can still not fathom that arguing semantics is arguing about logic, and meaning? - of course you can achieve ideological goals by arguing what a word means.
@@CynicalBastard you need to lookup why semantics arguments are pointless in nearly every situation. It boils down to how a word is defined and not what actually matters. Think about how many movements get dismantled from within simply by semantics. BLM tried to redefine racism and nobody talked about the issues, just if black people could or couldn't be racist. Reform the police gets renamed defund the police now we argue if it's complete defunding. Gender identity gets shortened to gender now we only argue what gender means instead of whether you should respect them. It's the same semantic garbage everytime that means absolutely nothing in changing what people actually think
@@kazmo9148 What I am saying would apply to the end-game. Not so much the minutia.
You would still call a woman sexist if she is a misandrist. Why are we still having these conversations?
Because there are still people stuck in the SJW mindset looking to get woke points wherever they can get them.
But is it systemic misandry?
/s incase you didn't catch it
@@jjdude5531 Never implied or said that it was. Sexism, like racism, doesn't have to be systemic.
@@angel-.- I was just joking lol
The whole "erm actually it's not technically racism" thing is pretty much on the same level as getting pedantic over the definition of "decimate", or "begging the question", or "bug" - technically correct, but largely useless (and more likely deleterious) in the context of conversation with a layperson.
Those people who say that your using decimate wrong aren’t even technically correct, though, thanks to how language development works.
@@SS-xr7jf You are correct, yet I do not think that it is right to use it in that manner. My reasoning is that there are many words for "to destroy", but there is only one word for "to remove one-tenth" (If I am wrong, please enlighten me), and it seems pragmatic to keep them distinct. If I possess a surplus of hammers, I should not use my only wrench to pound a nail, yes?
@@Warsmith_The Regardless of our desires, word use will be what it is. We can all have our pet battles with the world at large about how words are used but being a language prescriptivist is idealism. To borrow a meme. A descriptive definition of a word, how people actually use a word, is truer. Saying Decimiate is the the punishing of every tenth solider by execution is basically just etymology. For example, even saying to destroy 1/10th of something is technically false, its a specific type of punishment for a specific transgression.
@@Warsmith_The yes but language development doesn’t really care about what ideally should be the words definition, no matter how sound your reasoning. It’s only concerned with how it’s used in communication. And just about no one uses the 1/10 destroyed definition unless they are specifically talking about Roman soldiers. And why would they? What context requires you to say exactly 10% of something was destroyed? I’m fairly certain that, without the new definition’s development, the word would simply fall into obsolescence and be forgotten. There’s just not really any utility in that definition outside of the cultural practice that born it in the first place.
So both definitions are correct. It’s just situational which applies.
@@Warsmith_The it definitely feels like language is slowly losing all meaning as each word slowly gains all meanings... however, this is just a feeling. i do kind of agree with the specific decimate vs destroy argument though
I think we need to start making distinctions about experiences based on physical location and community, and experiences that are experienced by a certain group across the board. POC can experience racism on a scale depending on what part of the country they live in, what policies are in place, and what kind of people live in that area. Especially when it comes to the different wealth and social classes that POC fall into.
I guess, but near-universally around the globe, the darker skinned you are, the worse you have it, systemically. I mean, being black is less bad in some places? Wow, how nice for them, or something.
I'm only a few minutes into this video but I have a question. Is it always systemic racism when a white person does racism? It seems weird that someone's individual act of racism is systemic if done by a white person and individual if by a black person. Now, I know black people don't really have the institutional power to do much systemic racism, but surely a white person is capable of doing racisms all on their own, individually.
Instictively I'd say it's both personal individual racism and contributing to reinforcing systemic racism. They might not be an 'official' part of the system, but they're helping it.
Personal and systemic racism are two different things that can occur at the same time, doesn't have to be one or the other.
One white person being racist against a black person is personal racism, but the cause and consequences of this interaction are part of systemic racism.
@@manjackson2772 Makes sense, thanks
from my understanding the societal weight behind the action is the determining factor. like a clear example to me is in jim crow america if a white person called some black guy the n word and told him to get out of his face, technically this is just as racists as if a black person did an equivalent action to a white person but they dont have society behind them. as an individual we dont choose if we have societal weight behind our actions but the fact that it does exists alters the power dynamic behind equal actions.
that's how i view it anyway.
@@ASolidSnack Ah, I see
It seems like the crux of his argument is that systemic racism and it's history has a uniquely more influential impact on black people's behaviors (more so than any other environmental factors for other people) and therefore should almost always be considered when discussing bad things black people do. I disagree with this, but since our history is like 95% defined by systemic racism, I get why it holds so much power over people's reasoning.
Agreed, It's not a competition. Obsessing over which groups got uniquely fucked over isn't productive. Also the human race hasn't stopped doing genocide. Yemen and Xinjiang should be a reminder that no one is safe.
ya, like i'll be the first to say black people, and basically all minorities, have been railed like a transcontinental railroad in the us but that is still just an environmental factor. like every kkk member joined up not because of there genes but because of their environment in which they were raised.
you cant really give this leeway to minority groups w/o saying minority groups are less capable of being aware of how they should act. generally i am a consequentialist but i cant really get behind this idea that "white people are better off so they should be held more accountable". like what is the rational to basically say "white people raised in a kkk environment should be held more accountable than a black separatist who wants to live away from white people whos only individual crinme is being born white?"
@@caad5258
Its still going on in America too.
This is what happens when you take your identity politics too far in my view and reduce individuals and their experiences to their social group too rigidly.
Having identity politics in the first place is already taking identity politics too far, lol.
Individual experiences are way more important than group shit, unless you're talking academic discourse specifically.
@@Tacklepig No. I am a Socialist, group rights, identities and interests exist. You do you.
somebody's life experience excuses their racism?; utterly amazing stance here. it will get you far.
"we're getting lost in semantics here..." -the guy who changes the definition of every other word.
I remember when I was like this...I'm really glad those days are over.
That look on Vaush’s face when that guy mentioned his dad is white. 😂 I swear, so many biracial people have these hang-ups.
51:40 He's having Professor Flowers war flashbacks lool
Nah, I'm sorry, Vaush is correct in every point here. This guy does want to be more lenient on minorities entirely because of a history of oppression which is not a good strategy at the individual level. Structural and interpersonal racism is more clear, more consistent, and more effective when talking to a lay person. I really think this guy is just afraid of being called racist or something and has constructed rules to minimize the chance that it happens.
racism = prejudice + power sounds like trying to avoid being called out for racism by redefining racism as prejudice.
I'm actually reminded of a comment by Zimmerman in his book, "A People's History of the United States", where he argued against the qualifications we make on people by briefly mentioning their atrocities and then expanding on their contributions. It's similar to being quick to qualify individual acts of racism instead of separating them into two separate discussions.
this guy could justify his girlfriend cheating on him
well....you see.....historically...
Before even watching the video I can answer the question in it's title: We should talk about race just like Measurehead from Disco Elysium.
This conversation is why insistent terminology is a red flag for me. It shows that the person hasn't synthesized that information.
You should listen to PoC, but you need to think about what they told you. They aren't Noble Savages, they're people.
i'm glad that conversation was so positive and constructive. i was a tad worried for a hot second, but this was nice
Systemic racism has its own term specifically to specify its unique form of racism.
Systemic racism is an abstract concept of racially based struggles.
standard term 'racism' is generally more insular instances, and relates to specifically thinking or treating a race negatively.
the caller seemed to think that there was some fundamental change in understanding racism and its aspects by redefining it as racism=prejudice+power as oppose to understanding racism by understanding history and sociology,
This debate reminds of the SpongeBob episode were that one dude tried giving Patrick his wallet back
Put some motherfucking respect on Manray's name!
This guy has the "erasing experience" line so well learned that he cant engage with anything else.
God these types are the most insufferable kind. They're so eager for approval they'll throw the character of literally anyone around them.
Its incredible that our side has to even remind anyone that bigotry is bad.
This dude gives off strong Baby's First Sociology Course vibes. His heart's in the right place, but the practical bits are lost in the fog.
This guy is literally struggling in this discussion because he can't delineate between two concepts because his entire point deprives him of the vocabulary to do so. It's really amazing to see him just steadfastly ignore it.
22:00 they’ve gotten away from point. Because they didn’t start off saying that crime by crime in general is the same for everyone or that people aren’t influenced by poverty to committed. Vaush said that no matter the race of a person who commits a crime, it’s still a hate crime if it was motivated by the victims race.
Vaush has never read James Baldwin and it shows.
The "Of course!.....but" debate.
When I identified as a Libertarian, the prejudice + power argument didn't reach me at all. My position was moved by arguments similar to Vaush's.
This guy convinced more people to be alt-right than any alt-right advocate could.
The idea of racism = prejudice + power does come up in modern writings. It's definitely not a bad definition, but it requires a lot of context to what is being described. Racism itself is broad ideology believing that certain groups of humans have essential qualities that make them fundamentally different and, in many cases, inferior. You don't necessarily have to be in a power position to have a racist idea. You can see this broadly across oppressed groups that can hold bigoted ideas towards members in their own community. I think a better equation would be to say that systemic racism = prejudice + power. The most important lesson to remember is that racism has a long history to what we see now than when it was first introduced broadly around 400-600 years ago. A good book to read on the history of racism is "Racism, Not Race" and "Race - Why are we so Different". I think both books do a great job at explaining this history to anyone that isn't familiar with it. I sure wasn't when I first started reading on this topic.
What is racism without a power structure?
Srs question. Answer me dork.
@@pinkrimmedazureeyes Sorry sir. I'm too much of a dork to answer. For only a true dork can lower themselves to your level lol
@@pinkrimmedazureeyes Racism is simply prejudice based on race. That's your dork answer.
@@pinkrimmedazureeyes Racism (n)-prejudice based on skin color or ethnicity.
I wonder how internalized racism would fit in power+prejudice? It's a reaction to racism by the racialized, but it's prejudice against oneself.
Prejudice+power is a specific definition that applies SOLELY to institutions that exercise racist power, individuals are not institutions, and as such using the two interchangeably is simply an equivocation fallacy, period, end of conversation.
"I just think I have more empathy for a person of color in a really awful situation, than I do for those who benefit from the structures of power..." This is patronizing dude. It's just saying that you're more permissive towards minorities cause they've been shafted by the system.
So by this persons own logic and by using their robbery example, should not a robbery committed by a black/homeless person not be considered a robbery? Just like racism committed by a black person should not be considered racism.
But in their robbery example they still called it a robbery. (Maybe because they know it would sound fucking stupid to change the definition of ”robbery” depending on who commits it, but they have somehow convinced themselves that it makes sense when it comes to racism.)
He basically just wants to redefine the term racism to justify the argument that black people can't be racist.
There needs to be a way of acknowledging influence as well as differentiating experience.
I think that normie black people also understand racism the way that Vaush uses it and not as racial prejudice+power. I think something we forget in discourse about this is we are always told "listen to black people" in lefty spaces but that's ignoring all the black people not participating in these conversations on Twitter because they are outside touching grass. And I am saying this as a white person who used to agree with the racial prejudice+power definition until I had conversations about racism with my black roommate who constantly complains about the casual racism of black people. Her frustration with microaggressions coming from black people is no less valid than a black person frustrated with microaggressions coming from white people.
I think the "racism" and "systemic racism" distinction is simple, explanatory, and, most importantly, understandable to normal people (black and white) that aren't infinitely online.
yep there was a poll only like 10-20% of black people believe “racism= power + prejudice “ pure NONSENSE invented by actual modern day racists and sjws if you will
i think the myth is fueled by well meaning leftoids who have less experience/ awareness with black perpetuated racism and ministructures of racism
I really don't understand the obsession with this argument. We literally have the definitions that already explain the differences between racism and the potential nuance in some cases. The prejudice vs racism shit is stupid and just makes people who were inclined to agree with you to start looking at you like you're crazy because you're crying about using an definitionally accurate word.
Someone shouts at a white person because they're white = Interpersonal Racism.
Someone shouts at a black person because they're black = Interpersonal Racism.
The person doing the shouting being far more likely of getting an increased sentence because they're black and not white = Systemic/Institutional Racism.
It's not that hard to grasp. This person also doesn't seem to grasp the idea of both being present in a situation, which is funny because he basically explained HOW the definitions easily work via his white privilege example in regards to poor white people. A white person can experience class issues for being poor but can still benefit from white privilege when poor black people can't. A white person can experience Racism directed towards them but they don't have to worry about Systemic/Institutional Racism like black people. It's really that easy, it's completely accurate to the situation, and the distinction doesn't make you look insane to 85% of the country.
Black person robs a pharmacy "oh this wasn't a robbery, this was a man fighting back at the system, no robbery to see here"
That was what I thought when he try to brought in Haitian Revolution.
“Black people cant be robbers. Black people can commit theft, but they can’t rob people”
Sometimes Ganondorf is a large pig and other times he is goo.
Obviously he should be critiqued, but when he was black it was understandable.
about leniency, it's difficult to quantify where to draw the line when it comes to leniency. Should it be determined by a broader macroscopic state or event like systemic racism, enforced classism or terrorism? Or would you look at the sum of an individual's experienced emotional pain and dysfunction? I mean, we do already practice the latter to some extent, it's just that black people simply don't get that treatment from ze system.
The entire point here is that a negative disposition toward a certain race is just wrong. If a group with societal power can cause more harm then that just adds insult to injury. The original point stands. Racism is wrong irregardless of which race holds societal power. Claiming that racism is just prejudice + power makes the left look weak. The intentions of both positions are pure but the outcomes are not. Vaushes position lays the cards on the table and allows for qualification after the fact. The other guys position gives minorities an excuse to just be racist.
47:02
😬Oh NO!
I can just see the healthbars above Vaush's head appear and fill up.
VOWSH DEBATE!? Unbelievable!
so basically just change the word of prejudice to racism, and racism to systemic racism. did i get that right ? or did i miss something?
Prejudice doesn't mean just racial discrimination. Colloquially racism has meant a hatred for a different group that we can draw some type of social line between. Systemic racism is racism that is both brought about by the systems in which we live and is supported by each individual action that is a long the lines of the current power structure in that system.
Being anti gay is prejudice anti criminal anti anything not just race
Nah his argument just boils down to the old tired "It's only racist when whitey does it"
I would say racism is simply prejudice based on race. And when you combine prejudice with power, that's when you get discrimination.
I can overlook murder but I draw the line at racism
Racism and Sistemic Racism is better than Prejudice + Power.
this debate especially for the algorithm
I feel it's the obscurity of the issue that is the biggest challenge. People throw out broad, often poorly understood terms like CRT and Systemic Racism without pinning down examples and clear definitions. A comparable analogy of this would be me talking about Neo-Nazis. I'm sure it's in America and I've heard a few random mentions of it here-and-there, maybe read an article once about it, but I can't tell you one solid piece of empirical data concerning Neo-Nazis. I would be the worst person to defend the claim that it is an issue in America. The same is true for the criers of racism in America; it feels like such a second-hand, I-read-something-once topic, regardless of what I believe. Give me data, give me facts. Give me examples so when the topic comes up I can use them as staples of validation rather than appearing to just be gaslighting.
Its hard being on both sides of a conversation like this because I feel like both are really close to agreeing but its always like 1 or 2 things that keep them from coming together. Its frustrating af lol
Edit: I love the end of this video so much
1 or 2 major things though
I know this video is a few months old, but I just heard a reddit story from a mexican immigrant who was tormented by a ghana immigrant all through elementary school (slurs, being called ugly, KYS, and so much more). The mexican immigrant gets her revenge later in life... but the reason I brought it up, is I wonder what this dude's stuttered justification would be if he heard that?
yeah it’s so incredible usa centric, and, quite literally “black and white thinking”. the idea that racism = prejudice + power makes absolutely no sense unless you’re somewhere with one obviously dominant and strictly separated oppressive group. it claims to be the more sociologically nuanced but it flattens the issue to a comically degree from the perspective of all non americans.
There's a difference in either intended, or material outcomes here, and it's oddly a microcosm of the conversation itself.
This is why I like Vaush
11:05 Is the "Central Park Murder" the same as the Central Park Five case?
For me, the most interesting part was when Vaush said "nice try with that stunlock bait" and then immediately goes into a discussion on FLCL. It's a really interesting observation on race IMO
If you wanna use the intense definitions you're gonna have to also cite examples that the people youre trying to convince aren't attached to (that they don't identify as being their ingroup).
Russia and South America would be good options, as Americans kneejerkedly see them as foreign, other, and so wont have a wall up for the discussion or be on the lookout for you trying to gotchya them.
And then much of it would be really easily then transposed onto a WASP context.
This conversation was pretty annoying because it seemed like you were talking past each other. A better case for the person Vaush was debating that black people have more of a history of oppression against them, so racism effects them more. They could have brought up slurs for example and talked about why the n-word is considered more racist than “cracker”
I don't think he was arguing that we should just excuse bad behavior from POC, I thought he had a nuanced approach that acknowledged the history of over policing and biased harsh punishment in the judicial system. Also he was referring to the Vanguard Party at the end there
He literally did.
You must have missed the part where he openly agreed that if a woman throws a knife at her partner unprovoked, that should be treated as less serious than when a man does the same. You're being charitable because you don't want to believe he thinks that, but he admitted it voluntarily.
It's not just conservatives who you lose with this whole "racism is prejudice + power, you can't be racist to white people" regular people, who always vote left, are completely confused by this arbitrary distinction.
I've had this argument for like 8 years now, I've heard the arguements over and over and my perspective is very close to Vaush's, I think it's absolutely correct to call interpersonal racism racism when the victim is white. It doesn't devalue the conversation about structual racism AT ALL, and is so western-centric and ignores nations that have different racial dynamics in their systems of government power.