What do you mean "the contexts are different"? I mean, I know they feel different, which is partly why I tried to compare it to camping, where no one cares. I don't think I see how switching labels is "shallow" except that it's easy to think of, and even if all it brings to light is another inequality, it's worth keeping in mind.
Let me take the more extreme example of racism as an illustrative point. "If we had a 'white entertainment television' that would be racist, therefore BET is racist". This is the sort of argument you made and hopefully its obvious how ridiculous it is to you. The contexts for whites and blacks in this country are completely different (dominant culture, etc). Thus something being racist when it re-enforces the dominant culture is not the same when its supporting a marginalized culture.
BET is racist in exactly the same way "WET" would be, which is to say not much, because no one is actually locked out of anything (plus WET is a terrible name). Whatever else you think of me, don't just assume I'm inconsistent.
Now you're saying that racism is "not the same" (I'm assuming that means "not bad"?) if it's in favor of people who are normally discriminated against by the "dominant" culture. It amounts to justifying one person's bad behavior by pointing out someone else's, which simply doesn't qualify as a moral argument. If this is the only reason BET is okay and WET is not, I think it's a lame one.
In the case of television networks, it doesn't really matter. But I refuse to accept this mushy "different contexts" argument to justify anyone's wrong or stupid behavior. The whole point of striving for equality is to get rid of these different contexts, not perpetuate them. Be the change you want to see.
There is a certain sense in which BET may be less stupid than WET, which is if being black was a strong selector for liking some content over others. This is, AFAICT, less the case with "white" people, so WET makes less sense. This kind of goes back to what I was saying earlier about girls' CS events because, hey, the girls want to get together and hack. They can do their own thing if they want. That's the key, that's what needs to get into people's psyches: "You can do your own thing if you want."
Sure, you're consistent. But that isn't saying much. You really should expand your understanding of the word racism, along with the history of racism in the US (assuming you're from the US). If you think a supposed WET is analogous to a BET then you are tragically under or misinformed regarding the issue of race.
Your rather narrow and closed minded misunderstanding of race likely mirrors your misunderstanding of issues regarding gender. This isn't the place for an in-depth discussion about these issues, nor am I the right person to offer it. So we can leave it at that if you prefer.
Now you're just being condescending. If you don't think the conversation is productive, you can say that. Assigning me a research project and pretending to graciously let me walk away is a cop-out.
I'm only interested in the meanings of words to the extent they illuminate real objects and concepts, and inform real actions. I'm not interested in cultural baggage except as a stumbling block to understanding to be removed. I understand, to some extent, that people have complicated motives from a wide range of sources, mostly irrational, which makes them hard to get a logical handle on. I don't believe morality is that complicated. I can't shake the feeling that "WET" is morally stupider, but I don't have a good reason, and I try to ignore feelings like that. If that makes me "narrow and closed minded" in your mind, I can handle that. In that case, it is indeed unlikely that our conversation will be productive.
If I'm closed-minded, do you see how your comments look to me, pushing against my idea of literal equality for some abstract form of "corrected" equality? Then turning to diversionary tactics when you can't answer my argument (and a peripheral one at that)?
I guess the point was, girl-only gatherings seem more like a part of the end-game of equalization, except to the extent pretending the game is over makes it get over faster. Point mostly taken about "creating environments...".
>I'm only interested in the meanings of words to the extent they illuminate real objects and concepts, and inform real actions. I'm not interested in cultural baggage except as a stumbling block to understanding to be removed
This is intentionally putting blinders on yourself. Words are elucidated through their "cultural baggage", not inhibited by it. You cannot understand true meaning without all the associated context, connotations, emotions, etc, however irrational they may seem. This is precisely what makes language such a rich communications medium. You cannot divorce meaning from the messy soup of associated contexts.
I'm sorry if I come off as condescending, but I see this type of argument frequently online. People promote degenerate meanings of certain words (racism and sexism are prime examples) and then want to use those degenerate definitions to "prove" some self-serving result (e.g. "race-aware college admissions are racist"--sure if you use the most watered down and useless definition of racist you can muster). I'm sorry but I can't see this tactic as anything but purely self-serving, thus it is met with a condescending response.
I've heard that view on language. It has it's place. It's no good for philosophy, or anything requiring rigorous reasoning. It is precisely this kind of reasoning that is desperately needed in discussions of sexism and racism, so we can try to get past the emotional issues that are clearly, I'm sure we can agree on this, clouding people's judgment. To some degree, we have to understand or at least notice the baggage to neutralize it. But overall richness is not desired as much as precision. If we don't try to be precise, we've already failed at communication. This is the opposite of putting blinders on myself.
If you want to talk about something more complicated than just "discrimination based on race", I think you need to describe that in terms of simpler things we agree on before we can decide whether it's happening and whether it's good or bad. Otherwise we don't know what we're talking about. This conversation is a perfect example. While I'm using the strict definition, you seem to think that "racism" means when the underdog is discriminated against but not the "dominant" culture, I still don't understand it. I think your definition is broken and deceptive (at least it's possible to prove something from a "degenerate" definition), and you think the same of mine. Would have been nice to know that at the start.
On the subject of pure logic, pointing out that someone's argument benefits them is strictly a logical fallacy. I'm tempted to whine that your arguments are self-serving, but tu quoque is a fallacy too. Both are usually counter-productive, except possibly as an explanation after you've explained logically why someone is wrong, which you have still not done.
This is how I try to approach any sort of philosophical or moral question, especially in writing. If you don't agree on this basic approach to finding truth, we really have nothing at all to say to each other.
>But overall richness is not desired as much as precision.
Richness and precision are not at odds with one another. Attempts at understanding language through precision is precisely why AI has failed miserably when it comes to actual understanding of language. I promise you that figuring out how to model all the various contexts and connotations that are associated with language is the big breakthrough that natural language processing has been waiting for.
That being said, one can have a precise discussion regarding these admittedly emotional topics if we clearly define all of the relevant contexts that are involved. But anyways, this has suddenly turned into a discussion about race unintentionally. So instead of going into great depth, I will cut to the point which will hopefully clarify my problem with your type of reasoning.
Words like racist and sexist have a certain power in our culture. If you call someone a racist, they immediately become defensive because it has become one of the worst things you can call someone. This is precisely because of the connotations involving hate, inferiority, violence, etc. Now when you attempt to prune all of that cultural context from that word (by defining it as generic discrimination based on race), and then label programs geared towards minorities "racist", you are intentionally wielding that cultural context to stigmatize something that would not otherwise receive that negative connotation. You are changing the definition without simultaneously changing the cultural connotations that give the word its power. This is what is so despicable about altering the meaning of these words: you are using unconscious associations between racism and evil things to stigmatize things you simply don't like by forcing a new association in the minds of your audience by way of the old label. The "evil" connotation is then unconsciously transferred to the thing you don't like.
A clear example of how the degenerate definition is useless, and frankly absurd, is the case of doctors that check black patients for high blood pressure, heart disease, hypertension, etc. This is your "technical" definition of racial discrimination, ie "racism". But it is absurd that this should carry a negative stigma by falling under such a label.
