Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
This just reads like a bandwagon argument to me and reflects my thought that your argument confuses the trend for the rule. Do we define beliefs by how easily they can be enacted? This concept adds a lot of baggage to a pretty straightforward descriptor.
|
I understand your concern regarding the 'bandwagon' argument. I don't mean to say repulsive beliefs shouldn't be opposed no matter how widespread, I'm arguing that we should expend our political capital on those fights that are "worth it". I define worth in this case by how widespread and pervasive they are. Rally in Charlottesville that drew thousands of self-described white supremacists? Worth it. Tumblr blog with a couple thousand hits a year? Probably not.
In terms of "what is racism", I'm essentially arguing that the power dynamic is so at the fore, the ability to substantively 'act' on one's beliefs, that other concerns have to be considered after said dynamic is addressed. So while "racism" can be expressed by anyone, in America, racism expressed by white men is much more concerning that any equivalent vitriol coming from another group. Hence it being a rebuttal to "but look they do it too".
edit: I'm enjoying these questions/counters. I'm having to reconsider and sharpen my argument and might actually be able to get a self-contained, succinct argument here soon
