Goodman Games: Our Efforts Have Been Mischaracterized

Bravesteel25 · 2026-01-30T15:25:03+0000

Dannyalcatraz said:
It does, but I still see some quirks in my community’s discussions of racism that indicate a drive to frame it as a distinct and therefore somehow worse form of bigotry than the others.

For instance, several of my mentors over the years have insisted that racism requires a power imbalance in favor of the racists. OTOH, there are definitely racists within my family- some self-described. Some hate whites; some hate Koreans; some hate Indians. Etc. So I don’t buy that power imbalance prerequisite.

I think it's because your mentors are confusing systematic racism with bigotry. Systematic racism, to me, definitely requires some sort of power imbalance.

On a side note, I think it's good that we can all identify areas where we and others around us are being bigotted.

Gradine · 2026-01-30T17:35:32+0000

Umbran said:
Yeah. This language isn't shared by everybody - I don't use it consistently myself. But it is useful to know, so when you do run into it, you can recognize it and not be lost.

The way we were taught it was: "Racism = Hate + Power"

Which is a bit reductive but gets the point across that there is hatred (animosity based on inherent characteristics) and oppression (bias leading to measurably negative outcomes based on inherent characteristics). They are definitely different but are, in many ways, inextricably linked. Primarily in that the normalization of hatred can make it easier to justify oppression (see trans rights in the UK and much of the US, or immigration... basically everywhere, at this point). This is why the "let the racist's speak!" isn't the great plan some seem to think it is. But it's also why hatred can flow in every direction but based on location and culture, some people will not experience oppression.

Personally I think that the push to label racism as only oppression by anti-racists (ie the "there is no racism against white people") was super wrong-headed and you don't really see that argument anymore.

Umbran · 2026-01-30T17:51:57+0000

Gradine said:
The way we were taught it was: "Racism = Hate + Power"

Yeah. In the formulation I've mentioned, it would be "Racism = Bias + Power". Where the bias might be hatred, or could be other things.

Gradine said:
Personally I think that the push to label racism as only oppression by anti-racists (ie the "there is no racism against white people") was super wrong-headed and you don't really see that argument anymore.

I can see that.
As a straight, monogamous, cis, white male, though, I'm okay with the framing that my privilege creates an asymmetry. There will be people who hate me for what I am, too, but I still have a word for that.

GreyLord · 2026-01-30T18:35:25+0000

Dannyalcatraz said:
It does, but I still see some quirks in my community’s discussions of racism that indicate a drive to frame it as a distinct and therefore somehow worse form of bigotry than the others.

For instance, several of my mentors over the years have insisted that racism requires a power imbalance in favor of the racists. OTOH, there are definitely racists within my family- some self-described. Some hate whites; some hate Koreans; some hate Indians. Etc. So I don’t buy that power imbalance prerequisite.

Those arguing here that there has to be a Power Imbalance for there to be racism means that I could never be a racist for the most part. I disagree with that idea. I am a PoC, but I've seen enough from all different variations of people, that I think anyone can be racist, and anyone can stay away from being a racist.

A close relative of mine was the most racist person I know. They definitely did not have the power to enforce their racist views on others, which is fortunate. They were not white.

The unfortunate truth was that my sister was thus seen as undesirable to a degree, where as I got lucky in the luck of the skin draw. It really wasn't based on anything more than looks for a lot of it.

I think when they say systemic racism, they are talking about the ability to enforce their racist views on others, or that the system makes it so that the views of one group are enforced upon those of another group, which requires some sort of power imbalance.

This could be as little as my relative who disliked certain Asians or those who were blacker than they were (which is ironic, I know, but yes, there are some who are prejudice against others, even of their own "race" dependent on skin color) to the point of excluding them if they could, or avoiding them. In a setting such as a school, calling others names or saying they can't sit near you, or other things could be seen as systemic racism if you had the power to enforce it...even though it is between minorities.

However, being racist, I feel, does not require one to have power to enforce that racism, but merely happens if one despises or hates another simply for a facet due to something such as race or ethnicity, or even something smaller such as skin tone or appearance that are different than their own.

Parmandur · 2026-01-30T18:51:41+0000

Dannyalcatraz said:
It does, but I still see some quirks in my community’s discussions of racism that indicate a drive to frame it as a distinct and therefore somehow worse form of bigotry than the others.

For instance, several of my mentors over the years have insisted that racism requires a power imbalance in favor of the racists. OTOH, there are definitely racists within my family- some self-described. Some hate whites; some hate Koreans; some hate Indians. Etc. So I don’t buy that power imbalance prerequisite.

In terms of thinking through these issues, I have found that Ibram X. Kendi definitions of racism super helpful, particularly framing "racist" an adjective rather than a noun (people aren't in some metaphysical category of "racist", people have ideas which can be kdealogically racist) :

"Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities." (p. 17-18, How to Be an Antiracist)

Kendi then goes on to define racial inequity, racist policies, and racist ideas.

"Racial inequity is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing." (p. 18)

"A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people." (p. 18)

"A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society." (p. 20)

So, by these definitions, an African-American individual can definitely have racist ideas about other groups, but might not have the social or exonomoc levers to create racist policies that influence racial inequality.

Dannyalcatraz · 2026-01-30T19:15:05+0000

Bravesteel25 said:
I think it's because your mentors are confusing systematic racism with bigotry. Systematic racism, to me, definitely requires some sort of power imbalance.

You have no way of knowing, but they weren’t.

I’d bring up my white- or whomever-hating family members and they’d tell me “that’s bigotry, not racism”, usually citing the lack of a power dynamic. The articles they’d hand me to support their positions were equally clear about the need for a power imbalance.

And while you absolutely DO need to have power in order to “codify” racism, thereby institutionalizing it and making it endemic, the same can and has been done with other forms of bigotry. IOW, while a power imbalance is a prerequisite for the “systemic” aspect, it can’t be a defining characteristic of racism itself because any other form of bigotry may have the exact same aspect.

Dannyalcatraz · 2026-01-30T19:28:41+0000

GreyLord said:
there are some who are prejudice against others, even of their own "race" dependent on skin color

Absolutely! The “paper bag” test is a real thing.*

One of my cousins was dating a great guy: 6’ tall marine, infectious smile, built like a linebacker, great sense of humor. We’ll call him “Bob”…‘cause that was his name. He was also quite dark skinned, whereas that cousin was very light skinned.
And the day he was invited to family dinner the first time, he was alone with my aunt for a few moments. She looked him in the face and bluntly told him, “You are too dark to be dating my daughter.”

Despite that- and other stuff- they were together for a year or so before my cousin dumped him.

* it was lampooned in The Family Guy:

Dannyalcatraz · 2026-01-30T19:45:23+0000

Parmandur said:
So, by these definitions, an African-American individual can definitely have racist ideas about other groups, but might not have the social or exonomoc levers to create racist policies that influence racial inequality.

Again, not buying what Ibram X. Kendi is selling. What’s being described is hard coding racism into policies, not defining racism itself.

If we treated this sentence

Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities

more like a math equation, where “racism” is defined as “racial bigotry + a power imbalance” we’d have something like R = R(policies) + R(ideas); IOW:

“(racial bigotry + a power imbalance) is a marriage of (racial bigotry + a power imbalance) policies and (racial bigotry + a power imbalance) ideas that produces and normalizes (racial bigotry + a power imbalance) inequities”

Add in the fact that other bigotries have also benefitted from being codified into company, cultural and legal policies, and it’s all a nonsensical mess, IMHO.

Kannik · 2026-01-30T19:59:33+0000

cbwjm said:
One thing I can think of is health and safety, buildings will typically have a maximum occupancy by floor to enable ease egress during a fire or other emergency. It might be less about how many people are actually using each bedroom and more about how many people are in each apartment, saying 2 per bedroom might just be easier than saying that a floor has a maximum of 50 people.

Architect here, and that is correct... and there is also a minimum width to all egress routes which often equates to a relatively large number of people. For example, stairways in a commercial building without a sprinkler require 0.3" per occupant, with a minimum width of 36" (for really low occupancies, and 44" more generally). So that's 120 occupants for a 36" wide stair, which is well over the exception to provide a 36" stair so it's mostly 146 people for the 44" stair. Unless the building floor plate is a large one, it ain't necessarily life safety concerns that would have them put a limit of 2 occupants per bedroom.

(Note: All of the above is based on the 2026 IBC and valid only for commercial buildings and not necessarily residential buildings built under a separate residential code

)

Necropolitan · 2026-01-30T20:08:00+0000

Dannyalcatraz said:
Again, not buying what Ibram X. Kendi is selling. What’s being described is hard coding racism into policies, not defining racism itself.

If we treated this sentence

more like a math equation, where “racism” is defined as “racial bigotry + a power imbalance” we’d have something like R = R(policies) + R(ideas); IOW:

Add in the fact that other bigotries have also benefitted from being codified into company, cultural and legal policies, and it’s all a nonsensical mess, IMHO.

Yeah, bigotry isn't rational so the idea you can somehow come up with objective measurements for it is absurd.

Goodman Games: Our Efforts Have Been Mischaracterized

Bravesteel25

Baronet of Gaming

Gradine

🚫🧊🚫

Umbran

Mod Squad

GreyLord

Legend

Parmandur

Book-Friend, he/him

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Kannik

Legend

Necropolitan

Legend

Similar Threads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Related Articles

Recent & Upcoming Releases