Calling something a "white sausage party" is racist and sexist, and if you said something equivalent against women or minorities on-line, you'd end up in a huge shitstorm. This assymetry is a big part of the problem.
And I agree, asymmetry is part of the problem. As a white male, there's not a lot of derogatory terms regarding my skin color/sex that I'll get upset about. But there are tons of derogatory terms for minorities and historically oppressed groups of people where those words will carry a weight that I've never experienced.
I recommend reading
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
And then
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism
Of course, it's a complex topic, and there's a lot more great material which would help you get a better understanding.
While particularly focused on a specific type of racism in the US, includes a decent 101 on racism generally - https://medium.com/@absurdistwords/how-to-discuss-race-with-...
The very first definition in your own link on racism:
> : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Inherent inferiority, I'd assume, fits within that mind frame.
As for sexism, the second definition.
> : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
Now you'll start thinking of ways to complaint to the dictionary so that those definitions can be changed in a way that it's only about "minorities", I'm sure.
Like, saying all-white is inferior to mixed is not the same as saying white is inferior.
Also, do recall usages b and c, and that they are important to consider, and specifically see my third link for better explanation of how.
That you don't see it is framed as a question. Ok, look at it harder and come back to me when you have an actual answer instead of a question on your own reading capacity.
> Like, saying all-white is inferior to mixed is not the same as saying white is inferior.
Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know every single one of them will be a fallacy so I won't bother asking.
> Also, do recall usages b and c, and that they are important to consider, and specifically see my third link for better explanation of how.
You don't get to tell me which definitions to use. And I'm not reading some rant rationalizing why racism and sexism is good based on the target.
To restate:
"I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior[. Could you please clarify]?"
Thought it was implied. Sorry to be unclear.
>Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know every single one of them will be a fallacy so I won't bother asking.
You haven't added anything here, just restated your original thinking that I don't get.
Here's what makes sense to me:
1 + 1 = 2 1 < 2 1 = 1
>You don't get to tell me which definitions to use. And I'm not reading some rant rationalizing why racism and sexism is good based on the target.
It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion.
If you read the third link, that's so not an accurate assessment of it's contents.
No, no, you're doing a false equivalency. This is what you're saying:
1+1=2 but 2>2 if the second 1 is of a different race/sex/orientation/etc.
> It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion.
... According to you.
To restate again, for clarity:
1 type + 1 type = 2 types
2 types > 1 type
1 type = 1 type
How is this false?
---
I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works.
Yep, that is good and I agree with that, I'll let it pass that i wasn't what you were saying earlier giving the context.
But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1".
> I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works.
I'm not arguing that the definitions exist. I'm arguing your assessment that only using a particular one stifles discussion.
But it is what I said.
>But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1".
As to whether it is appropriate to postpone or cancel the event, I'd say that's up to the organizers, their goals, etc. If they specifically only want to put on a >=2 event, and they cannot, the justification seems adequate.
I'm not sure how, in that context, it equated to discrimination. I'd expect them to have cancelled regardless of the "1" in question, in this case.
You said, if I understood correctly, that the definitions meaning "there are essential qualities applicable to all members of a group" was the only relevant definition for purposes of this discussion.
I said, no, the other definitions are complementary, and must be considered.
You said no, they should not be considered.
I am unclear on how this is not stifling to the discussion.