Categorism.com - New pages [en]

Transmisandry

2023-08-20T12:04:16Z

Xzenu: Created page with "Categorism focused on targeting trans men. (In Swedish: transmisogyni) Compare: Misogyny, Misandry, Transmisogyny, Transphobia, Sexism. This is an ..."

[[Categorism]] focused on targeting trans men. (In Swedish: transmisogyni)

Compare: [[Misogyny]], [[Misandry]], [[Transmisogyny]], [[Transphobia]], [[Sexism]].

This is an [[intersectional focus]] [[foci of categorism|of categorism]].

Directed Trolling

2023-02-19T19:42:09Z

Xzenu: Created page with "In the context of discussions, the term "trolling" or "troll" traditionally refers to people who have no actual interest in the discussion or in the topic of the discussion: i..."

In the context of discussions, the term "trolling" or "troll" traditionally refers to people who have no actual interest in the discussion or in the topic of the discussion: instead, they simply aim to annoy people or to hurt their feelings or even to cause maximum harm, simply because it amuses them to cause such reactions. There are several ways in which such trolling can be connected to [[categorism]].

* 1. Persons who are genuinely bigoted against a category of people can pretend to simply be trolling for the fun of it.

* 2. Persons who want to incite hatred against a certain category of people can encourage people who are already trolls to join such discussions, or encourage other people to start engaging in trolling behavior. A person who thusly encourages trolling may be genuinely bigoted against the category, or may see it as a convenient way to divert bigotry from targeting another category which they want to protect - such as inciting hatred against one gender or against one sexual minority as a misguided strategy for trying to gain respect and peace for another gender or for another sexual minority.

* 3. People who simply want to troll are likely to target people in whatever categories they can socially get away with targeting. The same person will harass women if their social environment accepts/condones/encourages [[misogyny]], will harass men if their social environment accepts/condones/encourages [[misandry]], will harass homosexuals if their social environment accepts/condones/encourages [[homophobia]], will harass sadomasochists and/or fetishists if their social environment accepts/condones/encourages [[kinkophobia]], and so on.

* 4. People who simply want to troll are likely to target people in whatever categories are likely to contain a lot of vulnerable and traumatized people who are easy to hurt.

* 5. People who simply want to troll are likely to do whatever is perceived as harmful to vulnerable people, as this gives people an incentive to stand up against the troll's bullshit. The malicious troll will verbally hold their targets hostage, being as obnoxious and exhausting and boring as possible while squeezing attention out of whoever tries to defend the targets.

When at least one of these five are in effect, the trolling becomes "Directed trolling" as an [[expression of categorism]]

(To combine the above #3, #4 & #5 with each other typically goes with a dose of [[gaslighting]], stopping just short of outright bragging “muahaha, you can't prove that I'm being malicious on purpose – nyah nyah nyah”.)

See also [[Depolitization of Categorism]], [[Energy Drain]] and [[Schrödinger's Joke]].

Fortified Ignorance

2023-02-19T00:32:47Z

Xzenu: Created page with "No matter how wrong a person is, they can always double down and defend their misconceptions to the end. Any attempts to correct them can be dismissed as "attacking" them or "..."

No matter how wrong a person is, they can always double down and defend their misconceptions to the end. Any attempts to correct them can be dismissed as "attacking" them or "talking down to" them. Having more knowledge can be constructed as being inherently insulting - "How dare you tell me something I don't already know, surely you couldn't have any purpose other than making me look stupid!" This goes both for the simple surface facts and for underlying theoretical perspectives.

While Fortified ignorance can happen on any topic, it becomes an [[expression of categorism]] when mainstream people apply it to a minority - directly or indirectly demanding that conversations about or expressions of said minority must be limited to what the ignorant person already knows.

Politization of Category and Depolitization of Categorism

2022-10-20T10:53:23Z

Xzenu: /* Depolitization of Categorism */

Politization of Category and Depolitization of Categorism

On one hand, doing politics is needed in order to handle problems and to change things for the better. On the other hand, doing politics is something which is often exhausting, infuriating, boring, and does not spark joy. People tend to avoid situations and persons which they find to be exhausting, infuriating, boring, and/or failing to spark joy. This duality of politics comes with a huge set of opportunity costs for each person who are subjected to one or several [[foci of categorism]]:

* On one hand: If you don't do politics, you miss out on standing up for yourself and for others. Letting yourself and others get mistreated, rather than making a fuss. Leaving yourself without tools and networks for handling if some person or social system attacks you too badly anyway.

* On the other hand: If you do politics, you risk souring your emotional and social life. This souring can be at any place on the spectrum from merely tainting your life a little bit to on the other hand ruining it completely. Ending up either entirely alone or surrounded only by people who are bitter or manipulative or both.

Keeping a balance of how much and often to do politics can be very hard in itself, even when the playing field isn't being manipulated to make things harder. Which it usually, to some extent, is. This skewing of the playing field goes in both directions: On one hand [[Politization of Category]], which means framing a certain category of people as if their lives and participation in society would in itself be “political”, and on the other hand [[Depolitization of Categorism]], which means framing prejudice/bigotry/discrimination against said category as if it was some kind of apolitical natural fact. 

==Politization of Category==
When it's considered “political” for a person to have a certain gender, skin-color, sexuality or other social category, this can have several negative effects on the person's mental and social health and prosperity.

When you are considered being “political” it becomes easier for people to make an open debate of your identity, your openness, your participation in any social context, or even your very existence. These attacks (both when they are happening and when they are simply past experiences you have to deal with the memories of) are pushing you towards acting political, at which point people (often the very same people) dismiss you as being exhausting, infuriating, boring, and does not spark joy. Even without such pushes towards politics, you may easily internalize the idea of yourself being inherently political – which also pushes you towards acting political to an extent which has negative effects on your personal life.

There are many reasons for why a person may push for a category of people being treated as political. For example...

* Being bigoted against people in the category, while also feeling more comfortable framing oneself and fellow bigots as being “unpolitical” rather than as being “bigoted”.
* When people don't let you openly [[demonization|demonize]] and [[dehumanization|dehumanize]] people you are bigoted against, you can always retreat to a “treat the controversy” position of “oh, I'm just being neutral in this important debate – you are not trying to silence free speech, are you?”
* Genuinely wanting to stay neutral, yet out of convenience and/or limited understanding ending up in a [[Biased Balance]]. Either actively making such an analysis, or simply going along with the flow without thinking about it: When people are divided into two categories by one axis or another... if you are constantly presented with one category being presented as normal while the existence of the other constantly sparks debate, it becomes very easy to perceive the people in the other category as “being political” when they are simply publicly existing and living their lives.
* Trying to speak up for [[Monolithization|the category itself]], perhaps losing sight of the actual human beings who are being categorized, or never caring about them in the first place. Perhaps putting it on a pedestal, [[sacralization|sacralizing]] it. Maybe even crowning yourself as being their champion, savior or leader, considering them to owe you deference and loyalty.
* Trying to speak up for the people who are being subjected to [[categorism]] by initiating or participating in political debate on the subject, entering an implicit or explicit [[discursive alliance]] with the bigots about the category being inherently political. 

==Depolitization of Categorism==
When it's considered “nonpolitical”/”unpolitical” or simply “normal”/”natural” for a person to have a bigoted attitudes and discriminatory behaviors against people who have a certain gender, skin-color, sexuality or other social category, this dynamic does many things to enable and protect the [[categorism]].

* To position the categorism as being “nonpolitical”/”unpolitical”/“normal”/”natural” is to [[normalization|normalize]] it. It makes it easier to let the normalization be evidence of itself: “It is normal in a moral sense because it is normal in a social sense, so lets pretend that it is normal in a social sense because it is morally normal and neutral rather than because we opt to enable it.”
* It also makes it much easier to [[Victim Blaming|blame the victims]] (as well as blaming anyone standing up for them) whenever people acts in prejudiced, bigoted and discriminatory ways. “by contradicting the normal people, you were the one who caused the conflict and the bad mood”.
* It pushes vulnerable people and their allies to position themselves as political, with all the negative side effects that entails, thus closing the circle.

Sacralization

2022-10-20T10:37:18Z

Xzenu:

Putting a category of people on a pedestal can easily turn into categorism, both against the category thus being sacralized and against the opposite category.

* Sacralizing one side of a [[dichotomism|dichotomy]] easily turns into [[demonization|demonizing]] the other side.
* Meanwhile, it makes it easy to set unreasonable standards for the people in the sacralized category – standards which are being unreasonably high, being arbitrary and/or being suffocating. Either way, this can lead to [[invisibilization|invisibilizing]], harassing, [[demonization|demonizing]] or otherwise mistreating those who fails or refuses to fit the standards.
* It may even lead to stop seeing people in the sacralized category as being fully human individuals, instead seeing them as [[monolithization|avatars of the category]].
* It can also be used as a tool for [[exploitation|exploiting ]] people in the category. “Since you are so inherently good, you are of course expected to do this and this and this for me”.
* It can also go hand in hand with [[Infantilization|infantilizing]] them, trying to protect their presumed virtue and innocence from anything which doesn't fit the stereotype and which is therefore treated as being [[tabooization|taboo]].

Sacralizing a category also goes hand in hand with being [[supremacism|supremacist]] in favor of said category.

Category Switcheroo

2021-10-07T18:17:49Z

Xzenu:

When a person who is making an argument based on a certain category realizes that the argument doesn't work for this category, the person may try to save the argument by simply switching out the targeted category for another category – one which may make the argument sound more reasonable. This switcheroo isn't necessarily calculated: While it can be more or less calculated, it can also be purely instinctual. Either way, it may in some cases produce an argument which is actually valid and isn't harmful to anyone... Yet, in other cases, it may hide bigotry and discrimination under a thin facade of seeming seasonable.

In each individual case, this process happens happens on the micro level: It's a single person who for whatever reason or number of reasons is making a shift in their argument. Yet, for a person who lives in a context where they face systemic discrimination, each such case may become a part of the problem. A person who belong to one vulnerable minority may end up getting accused of all sorts of things.

Contributes to [[Demonization]], [[Othering]] and [[Stigmatization]], and can also be a tool for [[Privateermongering]].

==Example: Eric's alleged crimes==
Eric is an ordinary guy in most ways, key difference being that he happens to have darker skin than is usual in the area where he lives. During one single week, the following incidents happens...

* As Eric is sitting on a park bench feeding some ducks and taking some photos of them, a woman named Karen happens to find him offensive. At first she doesn't know why, and for a moment she worries about being racist. Then she decides that off course the problem is with him rather than with her. The thing she really hates is pedophiles, not people who's skin is darker than hers. His presence upsets her, which she concludes must mean he's a pedophile. Thus she walks up to him and starts accusing him of being a pedophile who's on the hunt for innocent children. She demands that he turn over his ID card and smart-phone to her for inspection. As he gets defensive and points out that there aren't even any children in the park, she storms off in a huff. Afterwards she warn others about the suspected pedophile.

* As Eric visits a store, the cashier looks suspiciously at him. Following him around with hr eyes, quite obviously being alert to him trying to steal something. This store has recently had a lot of problems with theft, and this cashier is suspicious of everyone regardless of skin-color or whatever – but Eric doesn't know that, and feels targeted.

* Visiting another store, the security guard mutters to himself about not wanting any “thugs” in his mall. He expects Eric to be a thug, a criminal. Why? Because his own intuition tells him so, that's why. He don't consider it to be about skin-color at all. It's his job to watch out for criminals, so of course his intuition serves him well. He's not keeping any statistics over who he suspects. But if he did, he might be surprised to learn that everything else being equal then he's much more likely to suspect a person simply for having darker skin and/or for being male. He doesn't know that this mall happens to have quite a few fair-skinned female shoplifters, since he has thus far failed to catch any of them.

* Eric and Amy meet each other for the first time at some general gathering. Finding each other likable and attractive, they decide to go out on a date. Amy happens to be a fair-skinnned woman, and also happens to be younger than Eric. One of her friend doesn't like that she's dating outside of her “race”, but realizes that it wouldn't be polite to say so. Thus he uses the strategy of making a huge deal out of the age difference instead. Amy decides to go on the date anyway, but during the date she isn't nearly as cheerful as she would have been if she hadn't been scolded for going.

* A few days later, Eric talks with a friend who feels creeped out by the age difference. Knowing that Amy is an adult and that it's not really his place to complain about age differences between consenting adults, he instead go on a rant about racism and how “mixed-race” couples and their children have everything stacked against them. In one of his counter arguments, Eric happens to mention two of Amy's past relationships, each of which having been much longer than the only sexual relationship Eric ever been in. The friend latches to to this, arguing that this must means that Amy is much more sexually experienced than Eric is. Eric agrees, but thinks it's a good thing. The friend then start arguing that it's not healthy to date someone who's at a different level of sexual experience then oneself. This argument is entirely honest, in the sense that this is how Eric's friend is actually feeling at the moment. However, he has never ever had this thought or feeling before: The conviction that everyone in a relationship must me at the same level of experience is entirely new to him, and the next day he may very well have forgotten all about this newfound opinion of his.

* As Karen hears the rumor that Eric is now dating a younger woman, Karen comes to the sudden “realization” that Amy is “actually” underage. Karen has never met Amy, but having already “realized” that Eric is a pedophile she now puts two and two together. The logic is undeniable as far as she's concerned, so she feels confident and justified in informing people that Amy is an underage girl who have a fake ID. When she tells the security guard who has already “realized” that Eric is a “thug”, they together reach the conclusion that Eric was the one who provided her with the fake ID. And probably provided her with other things as well... perhaps drugs and johns. As Karen and the guard starts spreading the baseless rumor they just created about Amy being a sex-worker, they feel confident that their rumor-mongering is in Amy's best interest: They imagine Amy to be Eric's victim, and imagine themselves to be her upcoming savior and rescuer.

* When Amy tries to buy a beer, the bartender accuse her of using a fake ID. She manages to persuade him by proving that she has graduated from University. Then he tells her about the rumor he has heard about her, the rumor that she got drugs and fake ID from the thug she just started dating. This reminds her of the sad conversation Eric told her about - the one where his friend warned him about “mixed race” relationships and how a lot of people will try to harm her. She assumes that the rumor originate from people's racist bigotry, and also assume that the rumor was a calculated lie to unfairly harm her and Eric.

* Amy's conversation with the bartender, including Amy's conclusion about racist bigotry, is later retold to Karen – who draws the conclusion that Amy has been manipulated and perhaps outright brainwashed by the thug. If Amy was in her right mind, Karen argues, Amy would realize that Karen is a concerned citizen who only have the best of intentions.

Privateermongering

2021-09-26T07:44:10Z

Xzenu:

To privateermonger is to indirectly terrorize a person or category of people by giving others permission to directly assault or otherwise terrorize them. The permission can explicit or implicit, and the assaults may be physical or sexual or otherwise. This creates a hostile environment where persons from the targeted category has strong reason to feel unsafe, as they know that other people are empowered to attack them at their own discretion.

The term “privateer” refers to how some countries used to give pirates legal permission, a “letter of marque”, to raid merchant ships from enemy countries.

==Redirection Privateermongering==
One nasty way of trying to protect oneself from privateermongering is to go down the path of “please attack her instead of me”: Arguing that the attacks are justified as long as they are directed at someone other than oneself.

==Privateermongering and foci of categorism==
Examples of applying privateermongering (of the regular kind) to a particular [[foci of categorism]] can include:
* ''[[Homophobia]]'': The “gay panic defense”, constructing straight men as blameless and justified in beating up gay men.
* ''[[Homophobia]]'' & ''[[Kinkophobia]]'': Teaching kids that they are not at fault for bullying the children who's parents are homosexual or sadomasochist or whatever, instead putting the blame on the parents for “causing” the bullying by not being mainstream.
* ''[[Misogyny]]'' & ''[[Whorephobia]]'': Constructing men and boys as incapable of containing their lust around “certain kinds of women” or even around women in general”.
* ''[[Racism]]'' & ''[[Misandry]]]]'': Constructing discrimination, bullying and outright attacks against men of certain skin-colors or against men in general as if it was a valid “preemptive self-defense” based on some [[monolithization|idea about said category]] being [[demonization|violent or otherwise evil]].

==Redirection Privateermongering and foci of categorism==
Examples of applying redirection privateermongering to a particular [[foci of categorism]] can include:
* ''[[Homophobia]]'': Using some version of the “I'm not gay” defense when people are attacking sexual minorities, trying to protect oneself and one's own minority group by distancing it from homosexuality.
* ''[[Kinkophobia]]'': Using some version of the “I'm a good homosexual, not a pervert like those people” defense when people are attacking sexual minorities.
* ''[[Whorephobia]]'': Using some version of the “I'm not the one wearing a short skirt” defense or the “I'm a virgin, not like that slut over there – please rape her instead” defense.

English

2021-04-26T10:25:33Z

Xzenu:

A temporary page for those it concerns.

Third video is: https://www.ted.com/talks/moriba_jah_what_if_every_satellite_suddenly_disappeared

Second video was: https://www.ted.com/talks/adrian_paenza_how_folding_paper_can_get_you_to_the_moon

First video was:
https://www.ted.com/talks/evan_zodl_the_unexpected_math_of_origami

Immigrant or expat

2021-03-16T11:11:18Z

Xzenu: Created page with "In the system of Apartwelt, some citizens are constructed as superior to others (or as "more equal than others", as the case may be). One of the ways in which this is..."

In the system of [[Apartwelt]], some citizens are constructed as superior to others (or as "[[more equal than others]]", as the case may be). One of the ways in which this is [[discourse|reflected by language]] is that we have two different words for people who move from one country to another:

* Expat: Person from a high status country moving to another country.
* Migrant: Person from a low status country moving to another country.

Alleged Incompetence

2021-03-16T11:04:06Z

Xzenu: /* Unbalanced Alleged Incompetence */

Alleged Incompetence
In a context where competence and good intentions is supposed to be what matters, it is generally frowned upon to exclude people based on superficial traits. This leaves two simple options for those who would like to argue in favor of [[discrimination | unfairly excluding]] a person out of [[prejudice]] or [[bigotry]] against this person's gender or skin-color or sexuality or similar: Instead of attacking in an overtly bigoted way, it is safer to try to cast doubt over the person's competence or intentions. While the later requires relatively open hostility such as [[Schrödinger's Joke | barbed “jokes”]] or overt [[demonization]], the former can be done in ways which more easily comes across as if they were neutral and objective, and is easily combined with [[Setting Up To Fail]]. Framing the problem as simply being a matter of this particular person happening to be incompetent, thus making it look as if the problem is all about the targeted person personally. After all, nobody knows everything and nobody is skilled at everything. We all have weaknesses, and there are many situations where it is relevant and useful to point out such weaknesses. Being so common and usually innocent, this dynamic can easily be misused as camouflage for bad faith arguments and [[gaslighting]] – especially since people who gets criticized tend to get defensive and may easily mistake (or pretend to mistake) valid criticism for being thinly veiled bigotry. Actually prejudiced and bigoted allegations of incompetence can be done in at least four ways:

* Allegedly Self-Evident Incompetence: Taking the incompetence for granted.
* Mysterious Alleged Incompetence: Letting the alleged incompetence remain vague.
* Unbalanced Alleged Incompetence: Blowing actual things out of proportion.
* Essentialist Alleged Incompetence: Arguing that only people of certain categories can have the experience needed to be competent.

Examples follows below...

==Allegedly Self-Evident Incompetence==
* ''[[Misogyny]]'': A new engineer is hired at a company where almost all engineers are male. When the new engineer turns out to be female, several co-workers takes for granted that she's obviously incompetent – and thus act as if there's no reason to give her any fair chance to prove herself. They never admit, perhaps not even to themselves, that her gender is the factor which make them regard her as self-evidently incompetent.

==Mysterious Alleged Incompetence==
* ''[[Racism]]'': A new engineer is hired at a company where almost all engineers are white. When the new engineer turns out to be black, some of the coworkers have to actively hide their annoyance. Soon they start criticizing his job performance, even when there is nothing to criticize. Rather than making up specific things, they leave it vague. He has done bad things, everybody knows that. What kind of bad things? Well, many kinds! What kinds of bad things, then? Well, bad ones!

==Unbalanced Alleged Incompetence==
* ''[[Homophobia]]'': A new engineer is hired at a company where almost all engineers are very openly heterosexual. Coworkers keep asking the new engineer if he has a girlfriend or is looking for a girlfriend. When he eventually admits that he has a boyfriend, some coworkers starts scrutinizing his job performance and are very eager to report any faults they can find. The same fault is often treated as much worse when the gay guy does it than when someone else is doing the same, but people are still quick to learn that they can get in trouble if they do the same error as the gay guy at the same time as he's doing it. Doing the same error at another time is much safer, since rules which are enforced equally for everyone whenever the gay guy breaks them won't be enforced at all when only heterosexual employees break them.
* ''[[Kinkophobia]]'': A new engineer is hired at a company where almost all engineers are talking openly with each other about their relationship dynamics and sexual life. Coworkers keep asking the new engineer about his past relationships and about his current one(s) if any. When he eventually admits that he's in a BDSM relationship, some coworkers starts scrutinizing his job performance and are very eager to report any faults they can find. The same fault is often treated as much worse when the kinky guy does it than when someone else is doing the same, but people are still quick to learn that they can get in trouble if they do the same error as the kinky guy at the same time as he's doing it. Doing the same error at another time is much safer, since rules which are enforced equally for everyone whenever the kinky guy breaks them won't be enforced at all when only vanilla employees break them.

==Essentialist Alleged Incompetence==
* ''[[Apartweltism]]'': A new engineer is hired at a company where almost all engineers are citizens in the country where the company is located. When the new engineer turns out to be an [[immigrant or expat | immigrant/expat]] from another country, some of the coworkers have to actively hide their annoyance. As they find out that certain relevant infrastructure in the new engineer's country-of-origin is different from the infrastructure in their own country, they decide that the new guy couldn't ever possibly ''truly'' get familiar with the system in this country. They decide that his background is simply too different, so that any skills he have learned in the past or will learn in the future will a priori be superficial and fail to ''truly'' get the job done even if all tests fail to show this inherent incompetence.

Category original sin

2021-03-14T16:41:56Z

Xzenu:

Take a category of people, such as a gender or a skin color. then assign it an inherited original sin, specific to the category. While this assignment of original sin is often done through religion, it can also be done through ideological concepts such as twisting [[intersectionality]] into [[inverted intersectionality]]. Category original sin is an extreme versionn of [[Collective guilt]].

==Examples of foci==
* [[Misogyny]]: Arguing that all women are more sinful and less valuable than any man, based on a notion that Eve would have been more to blame than Adam for the two of them eating the forbidden fruit.
* [[Racism]]: Arguing that Africans (and perhaps also other dark-skinned people) are somehow the descendants of Noah's son Ham... and thus God has commanded that all Africans should be held in slavery forever as punishment for Ham once having seen his father Noah drunk and naked.
* [[Antisemitism]]: Arguing that all Jewish people are personally guilty of murdering Jesus Christ.

Inverted intersectionality

2021-03-14T16:38:35Z

Xzenu:

Taking [[whataboutism]] to a personal level by combining it with an absurd way of doing [[intersectionality | intersectional analysis]]. While the underlying process is rather complex is rather complex, the act itself is simply a matter of picking a category and use it to dismiss whatever [[categorism]] (or other problem) a person is facing. If a man has been subjected to [[racism]], accuse him of being heterosexual and/or male. If a woman has been subjected to [[sexism]], accuse her of being white and/or heterosexual. If a woman has been subjected to [[homophobia]], accuse her of being white – unless she's clearly not white, in which case you instead accuse her of being able-bodied or right-handed.

The underlying mechanic can be understood through the following steps:

* Step 1: Take the simple fact that in every [[social context]] there are some categories which are generally held in higher esteem than others.
* Step 2: Remove the need for context, turning the position into an absolute where the category ''in itself'' is regarded as either “privileged” or “oppressed”.
* Step 3: Transmute the category from representing a label or characteristic, to instead refer to the actual persons typically associated with the label. Suddenly each single person who can be labeled as (insert category here) is now to be constructed as being a person who is a priori “a privileged person” or a priori “an oppressed person” - regardless of circumstances.
* Step 4: Now transmute these actual human beings into symbols and [[scapegoating | scapegoats]]. If you are included in the privileged category, then you are the assigned to ''be'' the oppressor and even be the oppression itself – an inherited [[category original sin]] of which you can never be forgiven.
* Step 5: Now add intersectionality to this mess, thus pointing out that ''everyone'' belongs to several privileged categories – thus everyone is the enemy, nobody deserves any care or compassion, we should simply hate and despise everyone without exception.

Whataboutism

2021-03-14T16:07:50Z

Xzenu:

''Why care about an issue, considering that other issues also exists?'' Whataboutism is the art of dismissing any issue such as a [[foci of categorism | focus]] or [[expressions of categorism | expression]] of [[categorism]] by invoking some other issue. Why care about [[racism]] when [[sexism]] still exists, why care about sexism when [[homophobia]] still exists, and why care about homophobia when racism still exists?

Besides being used as a method of defending all and any foci and expressions of categorism, whataboutism can also be used as an expression of categorism in its own right by systematically using it to defend a specific focus of categorism.

==Interactions==

* ''[[Zerosumming]]'': Arguing that we shouldn't care about one minority because it would diminish he struggle for another minority.

Men's violence against women

2021-03-09T18:06:05Z

Xzenu: /* “Men's violence against women” as invisibilizing dogma */

The term “Men's violence against women” refers to something much bigger than individual cases of violence where the attacker happens to be male and the victim happens to be female. Actual instances of actual violence are done by individuals and by groups (in a narrow sense of the word “group”), not by categories. Yet the words “men” and “women” in the concept of “Men's violence against women” refers to the categories themselves.

In the model of conceptualizing [[categorism]] (including [[sexism]]) and [[kyriarchy]] (including [[Kyriarchy#Patriarchy | patriarchy]]) as two separate (although intertwined) phenomena, we can understand the concept of “Men's violence against women” in two different ways: One is as a specific package of sexism and other categorism which upholds patriarchy, one is as a limiting dogma which among other things upholds [[homophobia | homophobic]] structures by [[invisibilization | invisibilizing]] violence in same sex relationships. While these two ways are radically different from each other, they are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they can address different problems which not only are real but may also gain power from each other.

==“Men's violence against women” as systemic dis-empowerment (mostly against women)==
A case of domestic abuse or sexual abuse can reasonably be seen as a metaphorical weapon used by the attacker against the victim. This is true regardless of what genders (if any) the parties involved were assigned at birth or are currently identified as by themselves or by society in general. Several social norms can contribute to turning domestic abuse and sexual abuse into a patriarchal society's weapons against women in general:

1. Norms which encourage men to be more aggressive and “take what they want” at other people's expense. 
2. Norms which encourage women to be passive, meek and compliant. 
3. Norms which invisibilize and normalize domestic abuse and sexual abuse. In all individual cases, this hurts ''all'' victims of domestic abuse (regardless of their gender and regardless of their attacker's gender), but on a [[macro level of context]] it mostly hurt people of whatever gender is most often targeted for domestic abuse and/or sexual abuse. Note that the two previously mentioned norms contribute to women getting attacked more often and to men getting attacked less often. 
4. Norms which use some men's violence against women as an excuse for demanding that women stay protected by submitting to ''other'' men. 
5. Norms which use some men's violence against women as an excuse for demanding that women stay safe by staying at home. 
6. Norms which condemn women who are involved in sexual acts as being “impure”, “tainted”, “a fallen women”, “a slut” or similar. Besides blaming the victim and protecting the rapist in cases of male-on-female sexual abuse, this norm also protect men from sexual abuse and unwanted sexual attention from any woman who has anything to lose by being branded by the mentioned labels. 
7. Norms which condemn male homosexuality. While this [[homophobia]] mainly harms innocent homosexuals of both genders, it also protects heterosexual men from sexual abuse and unwanted sexual attention from any man who has anything to lose by being branded as homosexual. 
8. Norms which excuse and encourage violence against homosexuals. A man can use such norms to get threatening or outright violent against any woman who refuse his advances, as well as against any man who does sexual advances against him.

Summary: A web of social norms which dis-empowers all women as well as gay men and timid men, while encouraging and enabling each heterosexual man to be “assertive” at other people's dire expense – or even outright violent and abusive. This does not empower or otherwise benefit all men, but it does empower and benefit those men who are willing to embrace the mentioned toxic norms.

Note that this package of norms doesn't have to be called “men's violence against women”, it can just be called “[[Heterosexist normativity]]” instead.

==“Men's violence against women” as invisibilizing dogma==
To conceptualize domestic abuse and sexual abuse as “men's violence against women” has several nasty side effects, whether intentionally or otherwise.

1. It invisibilizes and incomprehensionizes domestic abuse and sexual abuse in same-sex relationships, thus discouraging the victims from seeking help as well as discouraging others from helping them. 
2. It invisibilizes and incomprehensionizes domestic abuse and sexual abuse in cases where the victim is male and the attacker is female. 
3. It invisibilizes and incomprehensionizes domestic abuse and sexual abuse in all cases where at least one of the persons involved is transsexual, non-binary, intersexual or similar. It also invites everyone to categorize violent transwomen as “actually being men” and to categorize victimized transmen as “actually being women”. 
4. It contributes to transforming historic and contemporary systemic misogyny in society into an idea of a gendered “[[category original sin]]” bestowed upon any person guilty of having been assigned male at birth.

Composite reality

2021-02-16T20:47:55Z

Xzenu:

Reality is complex. To understand the world we all live in, it helps to distinguish between four very different kinds of reality: External reality outside of our minds, mental realities within our minds, social realities between our minds, and experienced realities in the intersection between the other kinds of reality. Together, these four kinds of reality form a composite reality where we human interact with each other.

Language exists only in mental, social and experienced realities, not in external reality. The words you are now reading is something you see in your experienced reality and analyze in your mental reality, based on a shared social reality which gives us a shared language. In external reality, all that exists are pixels on a screen or ink-dots on a printed paper.

This model of composite reality is for most intents and purposes identical to the “Three Worlds” models by the philosopher Karl Popper (1978), the core difference being that the composite reality model makes a distinction between mental and experienced reality which in Popper's model are both “world 2”.

Everything which humans interacts with exists in all four components of composite reality, and has at least some aspect to it which is constructed by humans: Our actions contribute to physically construct physical structures in external reality, mentally construct mental structures in mental realities, socially construct social structures in social realities, and through living our lives construct neurological structures which shapes the experienced realities which our brains creates in response to our mental realities and to our encounters with the external and social realities which surrounds us.

There are at least two ways in which the composite reality model can help us understand [[categorism]] and [[kyriarchy]]. One is to help us build a nuanced understanding of how categorization works and how it is always being constructed and reconstructed by us humans. The other is to see how categorism and kuyriarchy are being done in all four kinds of reality.

==External reality==
The '''external reality''' is the world of matter, energy, space and time. The world which Karl Popper simply calls “world 1”.

Categories in external reality does not exist: We experience the categories as if they were a part of external reality, but this experience is our experienced realities rather than being external reality itself.

==Physical construction==
Through our bodies and tools, we humans '''physically construct''' our local surroundings within this external reality. External reality itself exists independently of humans, and it is no evidence for it having been constructed at all rather than having sprung into existence spontaneously.

==Categorism in external reality==
Discrimination can include denial of physical resources such as reasonable quality and quantity of food, water, shelter, et cetera. It can also include constructing the local milieu in such ways that it's only function for some people. For example using a overreliance on stairs which locks out (or in) people with physical disabilities.

==Kyriarchy in external reality==
Concentrating the power over vital resources to persons who are in the dominant groups.

==Mental reality==
The world of thoughts, which Karl Popper calls “World 2” and Kahneman (2012) calls “system 2”. There are many mental realities, at least one per person, as each mental reality is constructed in the brain.

Categories in mental reality are a free choice: Each person can make up any categories they like, and might even remember these categories if they make sure to write them down and/or spend a lot of energy on repeating them. Note that the free choice is about ''how'' we categorize, not ''that'' we categorize. Humans are most likely neurologically incapable of thinking without using categories to think with.

==Mental construction==
Each of us think, and thus construct things in our own minds. Some thoughts may be fleeting, while others may dig themselves deep into our brains even if we don't express them to others.

==Categorism in mental reality==
''TBA (To Be Added)''

== Kyriarchy in mental reality==
''TBA (To Be Added)''

==Social reality==
The world of shared language, social norms et cetera which we human beings build between each other through our various means of communication. This is the world which Karl Popper calls “World 3”. Social realities exist on all [[levels of context]], from interactions between individuals to the entire [[culosphere]].

Categories in social reality are shared conventions of varying popularity and of varying stability: One way of categorizing may stay popular for millennia, while another may die out quickly.

== Social construction==
Language, social norms et cetera being built between human beings.

==Categorism in social reality==
''TBA (To Be Added)''

== Kyriarchy in social reality==
''TBA (To Be Added)''

==Experienced reality==
The world as an actual human being experiences it: Mixing sensory input with the preconceptions needed to make sense of the sensory input. While the sensory input comes from external reality, the preconceptions rooted in our brain has been established in an iterative process involving all four kinds of reality.

Categories in experienced reality are not only real, but they are a big part of what makes all of reality seem real to us. We perceive all external, mental, social and experienced reality through these categories.

==Neurological construction==
To learn something is to encode it in the brain. Once a certain categorization/concept/idea is deeply integrated into the brain and a lot of neurons are nested with it, it becomes a part of the reality we experience. This process of learning can happen in many ways. Including, but not at all limited to, formal training and education in social reality. We can also teach ourselves in mental reality, as well as tacitly learning from experience in experienced reality.

==Categorism in experienced reality==
''TBA (To Be Added)''

== Kyriarchy in experienced reality==
''TBA (To Be Added)''

==Video: ''Are planets socially constructed?''==

{{#ev:youtube|X1vEC_zS2aY}}

False universalization

2021-02-15T20:26:22Z

Xzenu:

Presenting a certain demographic or [[Levels of context and hegemony|context]] as if it was universal. Often goes hand in hand with foci of [[kyriarchy]], as the dominant category gets treated as if it was universal.

==The Universal United States of America==
With the USA being a dominant faction within the global system of [[apartwelt]], this nation tends to be treated (not only by americans, but also by others) to a sometimes frihteningly high degree. For example, In discourse about [[racism]] the terms "white" and "black" tends to be used in ways which would make them nonsensical if they meant anything other than "USA citizen of exclusively caucasian heritage" and "USA citizen of African heritage" respectively.

Apartweltism

2021-02-15T20:10:09Z

Xzenu: /* Example of Expression */

Categorism which divides people by citizenship or geographical background. Strongly intertwined with [[racism]] and with the [[Kyriarchy#foci of kyriarchy | foci of kyriarchy]] known as [[Kyriarchy#Apartwelt | apartwelt]].

==Example of Expression==
* ''[[Alleged Incompetence#Essentialist Alleged Incompetence | Essentialist Alleged Incompetence]]'': A new engineer is hired at a company where almost all engineers are citizens in the country where the company is located. When the new engineer turns out to be an immigrant/expat from another country, some of the coworkers have to actively hide their annoyance. As they find out that certain relevant infrastructure in the new engineer's country-of-origin is different from the infrastructure in their own country, they decide that the new guy couldn't ever possibly ''truly'' get familiar with the system in this country. They decide that his background is simply too different, so that any skills he have learned in the past or will learn in the future will a priori be superficial and fail to ''truly'' get the job done even if all tests fail to show this inherent incompetence.

Archetypical expressions

2021-02-14T20:18:22Z

Xzenu:

There are many [[expressions of categorism]]. Young identifies five of them in her essay [[Five Faces of Oppression]], but there are also many others. How do we know whether something is a expression of categorism or not?

The answer is that we must look to the three Archetypical facets of categorism: [[Prejudice]], [[bigotry]] and [[discrimination]]. Together, these three and categorism helps defining each other: Prejudice equals categorist beliefs, bigotry equals categorist feelings, and discrimination equals categorist acts. For something to fully be a specific expression of categorism, it must be based on of at least one of these three archetypical expressions.

Within reason, we should always keep an open mind and an open heart while treating each other well. To dismiss an idea, to despise a person or to treat someone in a hurtful manner may be justified, but the burden of proof is always on those who claim that it is so. The stronger the claim, the stronger the need for evidence. There should always be room for a reasonable level of preconceptions, acceptance of negative feelings and a freedom of choice.

Besides being based on prejudice, bigotry or discrimination, an expression of categorism can also be reinforcing, protecting or leading to at least one of the three. When something isn't based on any of the three but still reinforce, protect or lead to at least one of the three, then it is linked to categorism without fully being an expression of it.

For example, the phenomena of “[[stigmatization]]” is often based on prejudice, bigotry or discrimination. Or all three of them at once. Yet, some cases of stigmatitzation are not cases of these archetype expressions, and thus not cases of categorism. For example, to stigmatize a person for having murdered a fellow human being may be a case of justified disdain rather than a case of bigotry. As well as a case of reasonably negative special treatment rather than a case of discrimination. Yet this justified stigmatization of an actual murderer may spill over into prejudiced certainty that this person who has actually committed exactly one murder would secretly be guilty of hundreds of other murders as well.

Visions of kyriarchy

2021-02-14T20:15:01Z

Xzenu: Created page with "Constructing a discourse and/or narrative where the persons who belong to a certain category of people is seen as if they were immensely powerful. This can be done in at least..."

Constructing a discourse and/or narrative where the persons who belong to a certain category of people is seen as if they were immensely powerful. This can be done in at least three ways:

1. Faking the facts: Making claims so that the targeted category would, if the claims were true, fit into a reasonable definition of [[kyriarchy]].
2. Making up nonsensical criteria for power: Any person or category can easily be constructed as being overwhelmingly powerful by a tailor-made (or better yet unspecified) definition of power.
3. Confusing macro level kyriarchy with individual persons: Twisting macro level kyriarchy into being constructed as if individual persons would be inherently [[Monolithization | powerful]] or [[Collective Guilt | guilty]] simply [[scapegoating | for being included in the category]].

==Faking the facts==
In a fictional kyriarchy, the elevated category doesn't even have to exist. It could be space lizards from another dimension, or whatever. Even when the claims are about an actual category of people (which may or may not be in a kyriarchal position in society), the level of prestige/ownership/leadership held by persons in the group is exaggerated beyond what's true – sometimes very obviously so, with absurd claims about “them” secretly controlling everything behind the scenes. Note that real life kyriarchy exists on sliding scales, where a set of kyriarchal structures may be more or less prevalent in a society. Faking the facts can make an actually present form of kyriarchy seem much more (or less) severe than it actually is.

==Making up nonsensical criteria for power==
If “power” is inherently bad and has no real meaning beyond being bad, then it stands to reason that anyone we dislike is inherently overwhelmingly powerful. Any person or category can easily be constructed as being overwhelmingly powerful by a tailor-made (or better yet unspecified) definition of power. If we in a literal sense [[demonization | demonize]] the people we hate, we can even arbitrarily assign them to have conveniently unspecific supernatural powers. (If we starts specifying these powers, it crosses over into “faking the facts” instead.) Or we could simply decide that individuals in our category are somehow owed sexual or romantic relationships with individuals of the other category, and thus frame their right to say “no” as if it was some kind of oppression against us.

==Confusing macro level kyriarchy with individual persons==
When analyzing kyriarchy, it is very important to keep in mind that power is typically concentrated to special subsets of a category, rather than being equally distributed among all individuals who are included in the category itself. In other words, belonging to a category favored by a kyriarchal structure does not make a person become inherently [[Monolithization | powerful]] or [[Collective Guilt | responsible]].

Kyriarchy according to the 2014 system

2021-01-31T10:13:45Z

Xzenu:

'''This is an outdated legacy page from [[The 2014 system]].

In the 2014 model, the [[Five Faces of Oppression]] conceptualized by Iris Marion Young was translated into [[Expressions of categorism]], which at the time were called [[facets of categorism]]. One of the five faces was [[cultural imperialism]], which in the 2014 model got conflated into [[kyriarchy]] which was thus conceptualized as an expression of categorism rather than as a core dynamic in its own right.

*****

This concept will go through a major update, where kyriarchy is seen as being intertwined with categorism rather than being a part of categorism.

Basically: While kyriarchy is that those categories which are assigned power in a society are the categories which are assigned power in that society, categorism is the prejudices and bigotries and systems of discrimination used to uphold such powerstructures - especially when those powerstructuires are unfair and thus hard to justify without foul play.

****

The Greek word κύριος/kyrios means "lord or master". In this context, it refers to the power of dominant groups, whatever groups that might be, and to the structures that reinforce such power. Coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, the term Kyriarchy refers to a social system, or set of connecting social systems, that is built around dichotomous categorization of people, with domination of one group and the oppression & submission of the other.

For example men as a group having power over women as a group, or white people as a group having power over people of color as a group. These individual phenomena has been studied by feminist researchers under the name of patriarchy and by post-colonial researchers under the name of colonialism. The concept of Kyriarchy takes an intersectional approach to this phenomena, so that several power dynamics can be explored simultaneously: The same person may belong to the privileged group as well as the oppressed group. Strongly related concepts are “[[Cultural Imperialism]]” as used by by Iris Marion Young and “Symbolic Violence” as used by Pierre Bourdieu. Both talk about dominant groups using social reality to ensure their power of disempowered groups. In the categorism model, they are both included in the Kyriarchy facet, being regarded as simply different names for, and perhaps slightly different interpretations of, the same phenomenon. (In Swedish: kyriarkat)

==Kyriarchy as a facet of categorism==
Something is a facet of categorism when it [[Levels of categorism|on some level]] and based on a categorization of people is an expression of [[prejudice]], [[bigotry]], [[discrimination]], or some combination thereof. Kyriarchy is in itself a matter of discrimination, as it makes it harder for people outside of the dominant groups to participate in society. It often also has prejudice and bigotry woven into it, as justifications for the discrimination. Kyriarchy also fuels other kinds of discimination, prejudice and bigotry.

==Interactions with other facets and abstractions==

This [[facet of categorism]] is an expression of: [[prejudice]], [[bigotry]] and [[discrimination]] on the [[systemic level|systemic]], [[structural level|systemic]], [[discursive level|discursive]] and [[dogmatic level|systemic]] levels. In some cases also the [[Legal level]], and in the case of [[apartwelt]] even the [[international treaties level]]. 

It is likely to intersect with facets such as:
* ''[[Denial of agency]]'': Dominant groups preventing people in subordinate groups from standing up for themselves. Such as mainstream society silencing the people in an ethnic minority. Or the mainstream within the minority group silencing women or GSM (gender and sexual minorities) people within the ethnic group.
* ''[[Demonization]]'' or ''[[Infantilization]]'': Bad traits gets constructed as associated with the underprivileged or oppressed category of people. Also, traits associated with the category gets constructed as bad. It goes both ways, and in both cases makes it harder for these people to succeed in society.
* ''[[Internalized Categorism]]'': When bad traits gets constructed as associated with the underprivileged or oppressed category of people, these traits sometimes becomes internalized and turned into a destructive identity.
* ''[[Supremacism]]'': Meanwhile, good traits gets constructed (and often internalized) as image (and self-image) of people in the dominant category.

As well as with [[abstractions of categorism|abstractions]] such as:
* ''[[Zero-category]]'': Invisibilizing the fact that every person belongs to many categories.

==Kyriarchy and foci of categorism==
Examples of applying this facet to a particular [[foci of categorism]] can include:
* ''[[Misogyny]]'': The intersection between the facet kyriarchy and the focus misogyny is commonly known as "patriarchy", and here called by that name. (Note that while some people instead use the word in different ways, such as being a catch all term for all forms of structural misogyny, the word is here used simply as the intersexction between kyriarchy and misogyny.)
** [[Individual level]] and [[group level]]: While patriarchy itself is too abstract for these levels, patriarchal structures, discourses, dogmas and so on can empower facets such as male [[supremacism]] and [[infantilization]] of women at the individual and group levels.
** [[Systemic level]]: In a society where people systematically encounter almost exclusively men in positions of validated/unquestioned authority, their minds are likely to associate maleness with power and femaleness with lack of power.
** [[Structural level]]: A society can have many kinds of structures holding women back. Such as social norms that blame women for having children or for not having children, disqualifying them from careers on the basis of having children or for perhaps maybe having children at some point in the future. Or for being "abnormal" by not having children or for not staying home with them.
** [[Discursive level]]: Constructing the language so that it constructs women/femininity as being inferior and constructs the same behavior as being cool when a man does it but shameful when a woman does it. For example, constructing the same behavior as a boy being "assertive" and a girl being "bossy".
** [[Dogmatic level]]: Religious theology or political ideology positioning women as being inherently inferior and/or inherently assigned to a subordinate position.
** [[Law level]]: Most countries used to have laws that enshrined male dominance, such as allowing only men to vote or to run for office. Some countries still have some such rules.
** [[International treaties level]]: If two or more nations have ever entered a treaty where they promised each other to hold women back and help each other to ensure male dominance, [[contribute|please send information about it]]!

== in example texts==

* [[A frivolous arrest]]: As a person who belongs to two stigmatized categories (in this case women & people of color) is accused of belonging to a third stigmatized category (in this case sex workers), she is indirectly given a chance to save her dignity by distancing herself from this third category - thus contributing to the stigmatization and othering of "those people". This chance is presented not only to her as an individual, but to everyone who want to defend the dignity of the first two categories.

Kinkophobia

2021-01-29T14:12:54Z

Xzenu:

Categorism targeting "kinky" sexual minorities such as sadomasochist and fetischists.(In Swedish: kinkofobi)

Kinkophobia is a sub-foci both of paraphobia (categorism against sexual minorities) and of [[Queerphobia]]/[[LGBTQ+-phobia]]/[[DMRSG-phobia]] (categorism against the spectrums of minorities which relates to gender and sexuality.)

==Expressions of kinkophobia==

* ''[[Dehumanization]]'': Talking about kinky people as if they were animals in heat.
* ''[[Privateermongering]]'': Teaching kids that they are not at fault for bullying the children who's parents are sadomasochists or fetishists (or [[Homophobia|homosexual]]), instead putting the blame on the parents for “causing” the bullying by not being mainstream.
* ''[[Stigmatization]]'': Portraying kinky people as being "unclean", "perverted" or "unhealthy".
* ''[[Alleged Incompetence#Unbalanced Alleged Incompetence|Unbalanced Alleged Incompetence]]'': A new engineer is hired at a company where almost all engineers are talking openly with each other about their relationship dynamics and sexual life. Coworkers keep asking the new engineer about his past relationships and about his current one(s) if any. When he eventually admits that he's in a BDSM relationship, some coworkers starts scrutinizing his job performance and are very eager to report any faults they can find. The same fault is often treated as much worse when the kinky guy does it than when someone else is doing the same, but people are still quick to learn that they can get in trouble if they do the same error as the kinky guy at the same time as he's doing it. Doing the same error at another time is much safer, since rules which are enforced equally for everyone whenever the kinky guy breaks them won't be enforced at all when only vanilla employees break them.

The 2014 system

2021-01-27T12:32:47Z

Xzenu:

The first version of this site was based on the Human Rights Studies Master Thesis "[[Categorization of Human Beings versus the Universality of Human Rights]]" from the year 2014. Later texts by the same author has updated the conceptualization of categorism, but some pages on this site may still be using the old system.

Some pages of the old system, such as the [[old main]], are also still being kept for reference although with a disclaimer that they are outdated.

==Differences between the current system and the 2014 system==

Differences between the current system and the 2014 system and includes:

* The system of [[Levels of context and hegemony]] has replaced the old system of [[Levels of categorism]]
* (Implementation in progress) has replaced the old system of [[abstractions of categorism]]
* [[Expressions of categorism]] were called [[facets of categorism]]

==Outdated pages still kept on the site==

* [[Old main]]
* [[facets of categorism]]
* [[Kyriarchy according to the 2014 system]]

Levels of context and hegemony

2021-01-27T12:01:09Z

Xzenu:

An individual can affect another individual, and may even affect social norms et cetera in society at large. Meanwhile, every individual is affected by other
individuals and by social norms et cetera in society at large. Thus, social phenomena such as prejudice, bigotry and discrimination is not something which happens either between single individuals or within society at large. Instead, it is both. Intertwined with each other.

When categorism is done, it is done [[composite reality#Social reality | in a social context]]. This context can be interaction between two or a few individuals (micro level), a biger context such as an organization (meso level) or a very big context such as a country or global subculture (macro level). In the given context, a certain form of categorism may be more or less maginalized or more or less hegemonic. In a context where categorism against a certain category of people is widespread or even hegemonic, it can be reasonable to count the people in this category as being [[oppression|oppressed]].

Note that the categorization into levels, just like any other [[categorization|act of categorization]], is of more or less limited accuracy: The boundaries between the levels are often more or less arbitrary. While a distinction between levels is preferable in some situations, there are also situations where it is more fruitful to view it as uninterrupted sliding scales. More importantly, the levels (or positions on a scale) do not exist independently from each other.

==Levels of context==
Levels of context is a sliding scale: ranging from on one hand what’s going on within a single individual mind, to on the other hand what’s going on within the entire [[culosphere]]. The term “culosphere” refers to the sum of all cultures and all social life, just like the term “biosphere”refers to the sum of all biotopes and all biological life. This scale can be divided into three parts, called micro level, meso level and macro level.

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan="6"|Levels of context
|-
|More specific levels
|Broader levels

|-
|Individual
|rowspan="2"|Micro level

|-
|Group

|-
|Crowd
|rowspan="4"|Meso level

|-
|Organization

|-
|Local subculture

|-
|City

|-
|Nation
|rowspan="3"|Macro level
|}

==Micro level==
Such as individuals and small groups. This level is about invividual persons. A person is not a category, but may identify with a category and/or be categorized by others.

When an individual person has a system of thought or behaviour, it's typically called "systematic" rather than "systemic". Such a personal system may or may not correlate to what is hegemonic on the macro level.

==Meso level==
Such as organizations and subcultures.

==Macro level==
Such as nations and the entire [[culosphere]]. On this level, categoris are about statistics rather than about individuals. When a system of behavior or thought is widespread or hegemonic in a society, it's often called "systemic".

Note the difference between...
* how a category on the macro level statistically 'do'' behave,
* how this behavior statistically differs from the statistical behavior of other categories,
* prescriptive social norms (widespread or hegemonic in the society) for how a category of people ''ought to'' behave, and...
* descriptive social norms (widespread or hegemonic in the society) for how a category of people ''is assumed to'' behave.

Take for example the idea that people of a certain gender or skin-color would be violent. Lets say that within this society exists some norms that people of this gender or skin-color ''ought'' to be violent, as well as assumptions that people of this gender or skin-color ''are'' violent. Statistics shows that people inn this category are four times as likely to be convicted of violent crimes than people in the other category are: among a hundred thousand citizens of this category, four are convicted violent criminals - meanwhile, in the other category only one in a hundred thousands is a convicted violent criminal. This statistics does support the notion that there is a statistical difference between the categories, but it is irrelevant to the prescriptive norm and it does not support the descriptive norm. It doesn't show that people in this category are generally violent, on the contrary it indicates that 99.994 of 100.000 are innocent. When people are trying to use the statistics to support the prescriptive or descriptive norm, they are misusing the statistics.

==Types of structures==
Different kinds of social structure include for example discourses, socioeconomic structures (such as distribution of wealth), formal structures (such as the laws of a nation or the formal dogma of a faith) and social norms. When it comes to social norms, we should distinguish between prescriptive norms for how people ought to be, descriptive norms for how people are assumed to be, and mixed norms such as norms for what kinds of behavior (and from whom) we should view as “unfortunate but unavoidable”.

Different kinds of structures include:

* Prescriptive norms: Norms for how things ought to be.
* Descriptive norms: Norms for how things are assumed to inherently be.
* Discourse: How we talk and think about things.
* Formal structures: Laws, rules, formal dogmas, et cetera.
* Socioeconomic structures: Distribution of wealth, et cetera.

==Levels of hegemony==
Levels of hegemony is a sliding scale: ranging from on one hand a certain norm or other structure having almost complete hegemony or dominance within the context, to on the other hand the norm or other structure being very alternative or repressed.

Note that this can differ between different contexts: A social norm which is hegemonic in one context can be alternative in another, or vice versa. Also note that when a structure is squarely on an individual level of context, then it can be called a mental structure rather than a social structure.

==Cases versus systemic==
When something happens, it can be a rather isolated incident or it can be a rather typical part of a larger system. Or somewhere in between. The more hegemonic a certain norm or other structure is, the more people are likely to act on it. If one person innocently ask you a question based on a misconception about you, this is unlikely to be anything worse than a little bit of annoying. When you every day face several different new persons who each confront you with this same misconception about you, it becomes much worse for you. The individual person who ask the question is still just as innocent, but the effects on you are not.

==An example: Kyle's context & views on sexuality==
Lets say that a man named Kyle has a very strict belief that bisexuality is the only moral sexual orientation and also the only trye one. He believes that everyone is actually bisexual, that everyone who claims to be heterosexual or homosexual is lying or deluding themselves. However, Kyle spends most of his time in a subculture where bisexuals and heterosexuals are looked down upon - the mainstream social norm within this subculture is to be homosexual. This subculture is situated in a nation which as a strong history of homophobia but no history of heterophobia. Today heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals have equal rights, although there is still traces of homophobia in mainstream society and there are some subcultures which actively seek to persecute homosexuals and bisexuals.

So, lets break this down into three levels of context.
* Micro level,Individual: In the mental reality of Kyle's own mind, a certain kind of binormativity is strongly hegemonic.
* Meso level, subculture: Kyle lives in a subculture where the social norms are such that homonormativity is quite hegemonic.
* Macro level, nation: Kyle and the local subculture he lives in exist within a nation where the social norms are such that heterormativity is no longer hegemonic but still quite widespread. While the lingering prejudices is mainstream society is still a problem, the main problem is the attacks from people who live in subcultures where heteronormativity is strongly hegemonic. The main problem with homophobia in mainstream society is not a matter of mainstream society being homophobic (although that's also still a problem), but is instead a matter of mainstream society not doing enough to protect LGBTQ+ people from homophobic individuals and groups.

Being bisexual himself, Kyle is beset on two sides: On one hand homophobia and biphobia from mainstream society and from individuals who are anchored in bigoted subcultures, and on the other hand heterophobia and biphobia within Kyle's own subculture. People keep telling him that heterophobia doesn't even exist, as if that would make things better in the context he's actually living in. The fact that Kyle himself has both homophobic and heterophobic tendencies (based on a bisexual norm rather than on a heterosexual or homosexual norm) doesn't hurt anyone as long as he's single or dating another bisexual, but can start to become a problem if he ever get any personal power over a person who is heterosexual or homosexual or manages to influence some social environment.

Old main

2021-01-26T20:22:06Z

Xzenu:

Old and mostly outdatd version of the main page.

'''This is an outdated legacy page from [[The 2014 system]].

****

'''Categorism is "[[Facets of categorism|prejudice, bigotry and discrimination]] [[levels of categorism|at any level]], [[Foci and abstractions of categorism|based on a categorization of people]]".'''

While the phenomenon here called "categorism" is more commonly known as "[[racism]]" (in a very wide sense of the word racism), it may be not only a more common definition of racism but also preferable in itself to make the following distinction between racism and categorism: Use the term "categorism" for the general phenomenon which is regardless of what category of people is being targeted or what categorization of people is being focused on, and use the word "racism" when the categorization is one such as skin-color or ethnicity.

Categorism has three [[aspects of categorism|aspects]] operating on several [[levels of categorism|levels]]. The three aspects are the [[facets]] (''how'' the categorism is done), the [[foci]] (''what'' [[categorization]] the particular case of categorism focuses on) and the [[abstractions]] (''fallacies'' where categorization itself becomes a case of categorism). Thus, beside being a [[the concept of categorism|concept]] in its own right, categorism is also a [[the conceptual framework of categorism|conceptual framework]] that contain many concepts of these three kinds. Of the levels, two classic examples are the [[individual level]] (how a person believes, feels and acts) and the [[structural level]] (social, economic and cultural structures). Categorism backed up by [[power]] is [[oppression]].

Any comprehensive struggle for [[universal human rights]] is a struggle against ''all'' categorism. Not merely against some specific facet or focus of it. Any [[valid struggle against categorism]] is a struggle for universal human rights. Never to use a person's rights/dignity/freedom/needs as an excuse to deny that person, or someone else, their rights/dignity/freedom/needs. Or to [[zerosumming|shut down one struggle in favor of another]]. To derail discussions to drown out important issues is not a good thing either. The goal must be to liberate people and minds, not to move them from one cage to another.

This wiki explores...
* Various '''[[facets of categorism]]''', ranging from the three [[archetypical facets]] of [[prejudice]], [[bigotry]] and [[discrimination]] to more specific facets such as [[marginalization]], [[stigmatization]] and [[monolithization]].
* Various '''[[foci of categorism]]''' and '''[[abstractions of categorism]]''', ranging from widely know foci such as [[racism]], [[sexism]] and [[homophobia]] to more obscure foci like [[gingerism]] and [[witchparanoia]] and abstractions such as [[equivocations]].
* Various '''[[Levels of categorism]]''', ranging from individual cases to oppression that is systemic and structural or even enshrined as international law.

...as well as various [[examples]], [[related concepts]] and [[recommended reading]]. [[The wiki]] is primarily based on the Human Rights Studies Master Thesis "[[The thesis|Categorization of Human Beings versus the Universality of Human Rights]]" by [[Xzenu Cronström Beskow]]. The thesis is [[The_thesis#Download_the_thesis|available for download from the university's server]].

Please note [[From categorization to categorism|the difference between categorization and categorism. Which is also the difference between preconceptions and prejudice, between preferences and bigotry, as well as between choices and discrimination]].

Expressions of categorism

2021-01-26T19:52:27Z

Xzenu:

An expression of categorism is a way in which categorism is done. With [[prejudice]], [[bigotry]] and [[discrimination]] constructed as the [[archetypical expressions]] (being categorism through beliefs, feelings and acts, respectively), there are also more specific expressions.

* [[Alleged Incompetence]]: Unfairly dismissing the competence of the targeted person - actually based on the person being part of one or more targeted categories, which may be hard to prove.
* [[Biased Balance]]: AKA The Golden Mean Fallacy.
* [[Categorist Slurs]]
* [[Category Agency]]
* [[Category original sin]]
* [[Category Switcheroo]]
* [[Monolithization#Cherrypicked_Monolithization.2FIndividualization|Cherrypicked Monolithization/Individualization]]
* [[Collective Guilt]]
* [[Conspirationalism]]
* [[Dehumanization]]
* [[Demonization]]
* [[Denial of Agency]]
* [[Depolitization of Categorism]]: Positioning prejudice, bigotry and discrimination against a certain category of people as being “nonpolitical”/”unpolitical”/“normal”/”natural”.
* [[Directed trolling]]
* [[Energy Drain]]
* [[Enforcing Cateity]]
* [[Exploitation]]
* [[Fortified Ignorance]]
* [[Hate-crimes]]
* [[Illegal Discrimination]]
* [[Incomprehensibilization]]
* [[Infantilization]]: Treating adults as if they were small children. (To some extent also covers treating grown-ups as teens or teens as kids.)
* [[Internalized Categorism]]: When people are subjected to prejudice and bigotry from others, they tend to internalize it - making it part of their self-images.
* [[Inverted intersectionality]]
* [[Invisibilization]]
* [[Marginalization]] (AKA Social Exclusion)
* [[Malpractice]]: To directly or indirectly deny care to people of the targeted category. (Pending: Rename to Diagnostic Overshadowing)
* [[Monolithization]]
* [[Narrativism]]
* [[Narrempiry]]
* [[Normalization]]: Making categorism against the targeted group to be normal.
* [[Othering]] (including “racifying”)
* [[Pathologization]]
* [[Privateermongering]]: Giving people (explicit or implicit) permission to attack persons from the targeted category.
* [[Politization of Category]]: Positionin a category of people as being inherently "political".
* [[Reduction]] (includes “singular identity” and “depersonalization” as well as “objectification” – sexual or otherwise)
* [[Representation Bias]]
* [[Sacralization]]: Treating a category as (metaphorically or literally) "sacred", thus opening up for many expressions of categorism.
* [[Scapegoating]]
* [[Schrödinger's Joke]]: A method to justify bigotry and attacking anyone who disahree with bigotry, bu dismissing any dissent as a matter of having no sense of humor.
* [[Segregation]]
* [[Stigmatization]]
* [[Supremacism]]
* [[Tabooization]]: Making groups or practices unmentionable.
* [[Unchecked Aversion]]
* [[Violence]]
* [[Visions of kyriarchy]]: Falsely portraying people as if they were the dictators of an oppressive regime.
* [[Voice Appropriation]]
* [[Whataboutism]]: Arguing that it's never the right time (usually through always arguing that it's not the right time right now) to care about a certain focus of categorism, since other foci alsoe exists.
* [[Zerosumming]]

==Other==

* ([[misc facets]]): (Other potentially noteworthy facets which might get their own pages in the future.)

Schrödinger's Joke Jews

2021-01-26T19:44:39Z

Xzenu: /* An example: The board meeting */

When a person is making a statement which [[Demonization|demonizes]], [[Dehumanization|dehumanizes]] or [[Infantilization|infantilizes]] a category of people, does that mean that this person is joking? If the statement has no punchline, or has a punchline which aimed at the victims of the bigotry rather than at hypocrisy or at the bigotry itself, then the statement is likely to be a “Schrödinger's joke”: Just like the satirical “Schrödinger's cat” is neither alive or dead until you check, a “Schrödinger's joke” is neither a joke nor not a joke until you check. And then the answer depends on how people have been reacting to the statement:

* A.) If the entire audience seems to agree or at least accept the statement, then the person who made the statement proceeds to position the statement as having been genuine all along. Perhaps also a joke, but inn that case then a joke of the “it's funny because it's true” kind.

* B.) If anyone in the audience protests, then the person who made the statement proceeds to berate the protester for failing to understand that it was only a joke which of course shouldn't be taken seriously. The person who started it may then either drop it or escalate the situation, for example escalating by starting to make “jokes” about the person who protested, such as “jokingly” accuse them of belonging to the category which the original “joke” was about.

The systematic use of Shrödinger's joke servers to normalize bigotry as well as teaching people that it will have negative consequences for them if they disagree – at best being positioned as oversensitive and humorless, at worst being openly harassed. It also serves to give the user an excuse to deny the whole situation has having been nothing more than a misunderstanding. Which may still be useful no matter how implausible this excuse may be.

==An example: The board meeting==
While a Schrödinger's joke can be designed to also be funny, it fills its functions even if there is no real attempt or pretense of being funny. For example, imagine the following situation with a Shrödinger's joke against for [[examples|example]] [[Schrödinger's Joke|homosexuals]], [[Schrödinger's Joke Fetichists|fetishists]] or '''Jews''':

A new board has been elected for an organization which has been suffering from quite a bit of instability. Everyone knows that if any conflicts erupts then this would threaten to destabilize the organization further. Several of the board members are nervous, worried that the organization will fail or that their time as board members will be an unhappy one. A board member who we can call “Sarah” is well aware of this situation, and she also resents the fact that the rules of the organization forbids open [[antisemitism]]. Seeing how nervous and prone to avoid conflicts the people around her are, Sarah puts on a predatory smile and a menacingly “cheerful” voice as she she suddenly says: “I have heard that there is something called... jeeewish people! HA HA HA!” Note that she's not laughing, she's simply saying “ha ha ha” loudly in her menacing tone of voice. In the awkward silence which follows after her could-be-alleged-to-be-a-joke comment, she stare her fellow board members down one by one. Nobody wants to be the one to start a fight, and she smiles in triumph as the chairperson simply changes the topic by moving on to the next point on the meeting's itinerary.

Schrödinger's Joke Fetichists

2021-01-26T19:42:21Z

Xzenu: /* An example: The board meeting */

When a person is making a statement which [[Demonization|demonizes]], [[Dehumanization|dehumanizes]] or [[Infantilization|infantilizes]] a category of people, does that mean that this person is joking? If the statement has no punchline, or has a punchline which aimed at the victims of the bigotry rather than at hypocrisy or at the bigotry itself, then the statement is likely to be a “Schrödinger's joke”: Just like the satirical “Schrödinger's cat” is neither alive or dead until you check, a “Schrödinger's joke” is neither a joke nor not a joke until you check. And then the answer depends on how people have been reacting to the statement:

* A.) If the entire audience seems to agree or at least accept the statement, then the person who made the statement proceeds to position the statement as having been genuine all along. Perhaps also a joke, but inn that case then a joke of the “it's funny because it's true” kind.

* B.) If anyone in the audience protests, then the person who made the statement proceeds to berate the protester for failing to understand that it was only a joke which of course shouldn't be taken seriously. The person who started it may then either drop it or escalate the situation, for example escalating by starting to make “jokes” about the person who protested, such as “jokingly” accuse them of belonging to the category which the original “joke” was about.

The systematic use of Shrödinger's joke servers to normalize bigotry as well as teaching people that it will have negative consequences for them if they disagree – at best being positioned as oversensitive and humorless, at worst being openly harassed. It also serves to give the user an excuse to deny the whole situation has having been nothing more than a misunderstanding. Which may still be useful no matter how implausible this excuse may be.

==An example: The board meeting==
While a Schrödinger's joke can be designed to also be funny, it fills its functions even if there is no real attempt or pretense of being funny. For example, imagine the following situation with a Shrödinger's joke against for [[examples|example]] [[Schrödinger's Joke|homosexuals]], '''fetishists''' or [[Schrödinger's Joke Jews|Jews]]:

A new board has been elected for an organization which has been suffering from quite a bit of instability. Everyone knows that if any conflicts erupts then this would threaten to destabilize the organization further. Several of the board members are nervous, worried that the organization will fail or that their time as board members will be an unhappy one. A board member who we can call “Sarah” is well aware of this situation, and she also resents the fact that the rules of the organization forbids open [[kinkophobia]]. Seeing how nervous and prone to avoid conflicts the people around her are, Sarah puts on a predatory smile and a menacingly “cheerful” voice as she she suddenly says: “I have heard that there is something called... foot fetishists! HA HA HA!” Note that she's not laughing, she's simply saying “ha ha ha” loudly in her menacing tone of voice. In the awkward silence which follows after her could-be-alleged-to-be-a-joke comment, she stare her fellow board members down one by one. Nobody wants to be the one to start a fight, and she smiles in triumph as the chairperson simply changes the topic by moving on to the next point on the meeting's itinerary.

Schrödinger's Joke

2021-01-26T18:41:15Z

Xzenu:

When a person is making a statement which [[Demonization|demonizes]], [[Dehumanization|dehumanizes]] or [[Infantilization|infantilizes]] a category of people, does that mean that this person is joking? If the statement has no punchline, or has a punchline which aimed at the victims of the bigotry rather than at hypocrisy or at the bigotry itself, then the statement is likely to be a “Schrödinger's joke”: Just like the satirical “Schrödinger's cat” is neither alive or dead until you check, a “Schrödinger's joke” is neither a joke nor not a joke until you check. And then the answer depends on how people have been reacting to the statement:

* A.) If the entire audience seems to agree or at least accept the statement, then the person who made the statement proceeds to position the statement as having been genuine all along. Perhaps also a joke, but inn that case then a joke of the “it's funny because it's true” kind.

* B.) If anyone in the audience protests, then the person who made the statement proceeds to berate the protester for failing to understand that it was only a joke which of course shouldn't be taken seriously. The person who started it may then either drop it or escalate the situation, for example escalating by starting to make “jokes” about the person who protested, such as “jokingly” accuse them of belonging to the category which the original “joke” was about.

The systematic use of Shrödinger's joke servers to normalize bigotry as well as teaching people that it will have negative consequences for them if they disagree – at best being positioned as oversensitive and humorless, at worst being openly harassed. It also serves to give the user an excuse to deny the whole situation has having been nothing more than a misunderstanding. Which may still be useful no matter how implausible this excuse may be.

This tactic is a classic of [[Directed trolling]].

==An example: The board meeting==
While a Schrödinger's joke can be designed to also be funny, it fills its functions even if there is no real attempt or pretense of being funny. For example, imagine the following situation with a Shrödinger's joke against for [[examples|example]] '''homosexuals''', [[Schrödinger's Joke Fetichists|fetishists]] or [[Schrödinger's Joke Jews|Jews]]:

A new board has been elected for an organization which has been suffering from quite a bit of instability. Everyone knows that if any conflicts erupts then this would threaten to destabilize the organization further. Several of the board members are nervous, worried that the organization will fail or that their time as board members will be an unhappy one. A board member who we can call “Sarah” is well aware of this situation, and she also resents the fact that the rules of the organization forbids open [[homophobia]]. Seeing how nervous and prone to avoid conflicts the people around her are, Sarah puts on a predatory smile and a menacingly “cheerful” voice as she she suddenly says: “I have heard that there is something called... gaaay people! HA HA HA!” Note that she's not laughing, she's simply saying “ha ha ha” loudly in her menacing tone of voice. In the awkward silence which follows after her could-be-alleged-to-be-a-joke comment, she stare her fellow board members down one by one. Nobody wants to be the one to start a fight, and she smiles in triumph as the chairperson simply changes the topic by moving on to the next point on the meeting's itinerary.