Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

The top 1% is general perceived as having most power in society as a single group, and much more than white skinned people counted as one group. Individuals of the top 1% has significant more power than the average individual of people with white skin.

Then we have politicians and CEO's, which as a group has power somewhere in the middle between the previous two when counted as one group, but as individuals might very much have more power in average than anyone of the top 1%.

We also got convicted criminals that by law, are made powerless and removed from the voting pool. Surely they as a group holds no power to perpetuate an unfair distribution of power.

If we want to keep the definition of "discrimination plus power", what amount of power and how do we measure it? How do we measure a groups ability to be vessels for social dynamics? Do we only count the quantity of power, or the average power per individual?

Not exactly, because the academic definition does not apply directly to individuals anyway (as opposed to xenophobia, which is a personal trait). Racism, like every social dynamics, is a statistical phenomenon. Also note that even even within the bottom, say, 5%, white people still have more power than blacks. But you are correct that racism generally works through people with more power.

> The top 1% is general perceived as having most power in society as a single group

First of all, we are not interested in quantifying exactly what share of racism does every individual or a slice of society hold. It is implied that racism works through power, so you can do the math.

Second, you mentioned "a single group", so I'll raise a point I find interesting. In social research, there are several kinds of groups we're interested in. Groups that are merely statistical set (how much money does the 1% have etc.), groups that have cohesion and common interests, and groups that are perceived to have cohesion and common interests whether they do or don't. The top 1% are certainly a group in the first sense, possibly a group in the second sense, but probably not a group in the third sense, although that may be changing as some politicians and political groups are trying to make people view them as such.

> Surely they as a group holds no power to perpetuate an unfair distribution of power.

That's true (although they may hold some power in their local communities).

> If we want to keep the definition of "discrimination plus power", what amount of power and how do we measure it? How do we measure a groups ability to be vessels for social dynamics?

It's not very easy and it's not very precise, but it doesn't have to be. We're trying to understand the basic mechanics; predictions are impossible anyway due to intractability. You can measure power in several ways. One is to measure it through proxies like money or positions (e.g. average income, or how many women CEOs there are). Another is to measure its effects, like whose groups interests are best served by legislation (at the various legislative levels).

> Do we only count the quantity of power, or the average power per individual?

Whichever is more useful for whatever it is we're discussing, but when we talk about groups, it is often the total power, rather than "power per capita" that counts.

Thank you, and that's OK. I have more than enough karma points here.

> And you cannot fault the public for this misunderstanding because that is the common and historical meaning of the word.

I don't know if the public is faulted for the misunderstanding or simply racism itself. But it is possible that it's a strategic mistake politically to call people racist and have it taken as a stronger insult than it is meant to be. I think this is certainly a good question for the left to figure out for itself.

> it is possible for a person, even a white person, not to be racist assuming they take appropriate actions? If so, I think we are very close to resolving our disagreement.

The thing is that I'm not sure how much a person can "be racist" individually more than be a part of a group that causes racism. But anyway, it is definitely possible for people to work against racism and make "themselves" (as a group) less racist, and ideally not racist at all. I certainly wouldn't call a person who works towards inclusion and fairness in their community or place of work racist.

> we have made a crucial shift from a "negative ethical obligation" (an obligation not to do direct harm to another) to a positive one (an obligation to take direct action to fix problems you didn't directly cause)

Not exactly because harm is still perpetuated (even if I wasn't the one who dunked you in the swimming pool, if I'm keeping your head under water I'm still causing you harm) but obviously we're talking about less personally caused harm, and you're right that there's an aspect of a call for help here. In terms of political strategy, the question is this: if I turn out to be keeping your head under water unintentionally (say because I just want to lie on my floating mattress), which is more effective for you -- to say that I'm perpetuating the harm done to you, or to beg me for help? The latter may be more effective if it's just me and you, but I don't know which is more effective when entire social groups are concerned.