It is funny that you didn’t go back to any of the Martin Luther King quotes that I added to the argumentation that you formulated.

I read them. They seemed to me to be perfectly clear in an R(1) framework, and nowhere indicated that prejudice against white people isn’t racism, nor prejudice against men isn’t sexism, which is the intentional implication of the Bivol-Pavda R(2) stipulative definition.

If there’s a MLK passage I missed which states this, please show it to me. I’ve asked other respondents to the article to do the same, and haven’t heard a response. Please point me to this. Direct me to the spot where MLK says that weaponizing prejudice against whites is an appropriate thing to do.

I’m not sure what the term SJ or social justice war means or why you categorize me as such, I tried to argue my personal opinion and where I believe your argumentation is weak or not informed enough to give an objective analysis.

If you’re from/in Europe and not on the ground in the USA, you may not be seeing the same application of these concepts that I’m seeing. The concepts we’re talking about, including R(2), intersectionality, and such, are being cooked into a toxic soup in the USA right now that you may simply not be privy to. I’ll try to explain how a bit further down below.

I come from a communication background and I’m pretty used to argumentations, framing etc. “leading your opponent” and despite the appeal of your article is very balanced between your definition of R(1) and R(2) it is clear to me and you also say yourself that you lean heavily towards one of the two. Which in my opinion is not helpful in achieving your proclaimed goal “having a conversation with each other” when it means that you are not open to listening to what you seem to consider your opponents. So I totally feel encouraged to ask you about your intentions and if you are sure that your intentions are what you proclaim here?

I admit I’m indoctrinated to R(1), and I admit my indoctrination to R(2) is limited. I’ve done so both in the article, and also in my first reply to you, and now again. I don’t think it would be fair or accurate to pretend I don’t have any predilections. I do not anticipate changing your mind, nor you changing mine, on this topic, because we both brought our indoctrinations with us, and will very likely leave with them. That said, I would absolutely love to carry on a conversation about the analysis in the article. And also of some other trends I see that I find very concerning.

I listened to what black conservatives and Thomas Sowell have to say yesterday and I partly agree, affirmative action will not solve the issues we see for good, there have been times where blacks and other people of color have performed better in society. Still it those numbers don’t prove any absence of racism.

I agree with both you and Sowell on this. While I do personally think that affirmative action is helpful, and I do support it, I don’t believe it will bring about equity in any short time scale. I said so in the article. This goes back to the fact that wealth is the real, major, primary privilege, and wealth is heritable, and the advantages of wealth are also heritable, and for wealth to “even out” takes many generations.

I do think there are certain things which are systemic currently in the USA, which need to change. The biggest of these is the drug war, and the judicial system in general.

Kimberlé Crenshaw who coined the term intersectionality did that when it was discovered at a company that they had hired white women and black men but no black women who were simply in their analysis not visible. So we see it a lot, so when someone tries to use statistics to prove that there is no racism then we have to look at the way those statistics are raised first before we can just trust them.

That’s one thing, and that might be supportable. But the path “intersectionality” has gone within the Social Justice framework, has led to a ranked order of inherent birth-determined victimhood based on a location in a matrix:

Social Justice teachings also indicate that you derive your virtue from how victimized you are. And they go the next step, by bringing the R(2) stuff back into the picture, and saying that racial prejudice is perfectly fine if it’s used by the marginalized against the privileged. Because that’s not ‘racism’ by the Bivol-Pavda stipulative definition.

The problem with homo sapiens is that we like and want to be prejudiced. We are hard-wired for it. And if you can be prejudiced while feeling virtuous about being so, that feeling is intoxicating. It was intoxicating to the Nazis, to the Bolsheviks, to the colonists displacing the Native Americans, and now it’s intoxicating to the Social Justice people. SJ has morphed into just another excuse to feel virtue from prejudice.

Personally, I would see Antisemitism as part of Racism, it is the specific form of discrimination against Jews and it works in slightly different ways than racism against black people.

Here’s the rub, though. By modern American Social Justice indoctrinations, you’re only right about anti-semitism being ‘racist’ as long as Jews are in the “marginalized” column of the matrix above. (some versions of that matrix show the Jews in two locations by the way, religion and race) If anything were to happen that would reclassify Jews as “privileged,” then prejudice against Jews becomes “woke” in exactly the same way that prejudice against whites is currently “woke” in the USA.

Do you see what I’m saying? This is an important point, that I really want to try to convey properly. If you don’t get it, let’s discuss it further.

My point with this particular article was simply to point out a definition difference between common folks and Social Justice indoctrinates when it comes to the word “racism,” but when this gets blended with other colors of the Social Justice pallette, the results are alarming.

And the reason this is alarming, is because it’s starting to happen. Social Justice folks in Canada are hijacking a legal regulatory agency and trying to push policies that indicate there are too many Jewish lawyers. The New York Women’s March was so bound up in anti-semitism they had to break into two marches, a Jewish one and a BLM one. There are other elements of the Jewish media which are also starting to notice, and that’s not even including the recent spoof work that had a prominent feminist journal republish Mein Kampf by accident.

These things are happening because the Social Justice presumption that socioeconomic outcomes are due to privilege, and not due to IQ or hard work or such, doesn’t match with Jewish outcomes. Jewish outcomes are great. They’re the richest race, and they’re also the smartest on IQ tests.

But does it really matter? Jewish people need to be protected against people who want to kill them and they need to be protected from societal discrimination. On the other hand, some can blend in when they don’t practice their religion openly. That is not at all possible for people of color, so there is also a difference in experience.

Well I agree with all of that, but the only way we’re going to be sure they stay protected against societal discrimination is if we maintain that all discrimination is bad. Saying “discrimination is okay against the privileged” opens the door for it to be abused, as soon as they get reclassified in the matrix. And there is ample evidence that they might not be “marginalized,” if you believe as many SJ people do, that outcomes aren’t earned.

If you start with the idea that outcomes are unearned, and due to privilege, then the first and most privileged group among all the groups are the Jews, followed by the Asians, and whites are in the middle of the pack. This is true whether you look at median income, or whether you look at IQ on the auspices that IQ is a “racist test concocted by privileged people,” as some SJ folks do. Either analysis has whites third.

Overall I feel like I tried to stress that discrimination works in many ways sexism, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, you name it. In most cases, we see white men as the sources of those forms of discrimination historically and in present times.

I’m not sure I buy this second sentence. I think discrimination is pretty universal to the human condition. I think if we’re just talking about raw cases of discriminatory behavior globally, the ones by the Chinese against the Japanese probably dwarf all other cases combined. If we talk specifically within the USA, the bolded case may be correct, but only because there are more white people. The only way to realistically make that statement in a solid way would be to do it on a per capita basis, and then back that up with data. In short, you have a hypothesis there, and I’m not sure I buy it.

So I’d say as we currently don’t see a lot of women or non-binary led countries, as we don’t see a lot of countries ruled by people of color that are not dependant on western countries and we see such a significant lack of representation of people of color in politics and other spheres of influence the ways of the white men to fight racism and empower everyone have clearly failed.

I’d like to see some statistics on this as well. I suspect most countries are led, racially speaking, by rulers of the majority race in their country.

I think “dependence on western countries” is a cop-out. The only reason Europe happened to colonize the rest of the world at that time was because they stumbled into the gun and the sextant first — if the Chinese or Zulus or Aztecs or whoever else had done so, they would have done it instead. World history is a constant struggle of war and colonization, and the fact that whites happened to win the most recent round of it was technological dumb luck.