3 ms·

The problem with this view is that it describes correlates instead of causes, and worse--that it confuses the two: most people understand racism to mean somethi

The problem with this view is that it describes correlates instead of causes, and worse--that it confuses the two: most people understand racism to mean something like "differences caused by race", and thus something that is morally reprehensible. Your example is one that is caused (though indirectly) by racism, but others examples are not causal but correlated (or at least so indirectly causal as to be meaningless)--for example, that midwesterners appear racist because they have a lower threshold for cultural differences, which is caused by the correlation between culture and race. Besides this, the left-wing view is easily confused with the popular notion of racism, which is widely considered to be immoral, and I think often the proponents of this viewpoint abuse the confusion, deliberately accusing skeptics and dissenters of "racism" without being clear that they mean the probably-benign "systemic racism" instead of the clearly immoral "racism". Further, many of these proponents also tend to consider "questioning systemic racism theory" to be an act of (systemic) "racism" because it inhibits the consensus required to combat (systemic) "racism". TL;DR I think the marketing was deliberately obfuscatory, and this has had a huge detrimental impact on our national racial.

throwawayjava 9y ago
I believe the reason that the root post is the top-voted comment is that it poses a helpful question: how do we fix this? My suggestion is that people stop being so damn concerned about their moral status and start caring more about actually fixing things. A system with de facto separate and unequal schools is just as bad as a system with de jure separate and unequal schools. Whether that's the result of an emergent phenomenon or explicit planning has little effect on the people stuck in the system. If someone's fragile moral ego gets in the way of an accurate description of the problem... well, that person's ego is the problem. FWIW you see the same problem in flailing engineering projects.
- weberc2 9y ago
  > My suggestion is that people stop being so damn concerned about their moral status and start caring more about actually fixing things. This is silly. Moral status is a necessary component of political capital. The entire reason the progressive left stuck to their confusing "systemic racism" term is because it conveniently allows them to strip dissidents and critics of the political capital necessary to implement their fixes or even advance the national discourse. Of course, we could think wishfully about a world where politics were irrelevant (as I sometimes do), but that's not productive.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    What alternative term would you use to refer to racially disparate outcomes that are the result of how large systems operate? The term "systemic racism" was coined and stuck because it's evocative of the actual idea, not as some sort of grand conspiracy to strip you of your honor. But I don't care. We can call it "silly putty" if it means we can actually talk about it instead of closely defending our honor. And if you have an alternative name that is evocative of the underlying problem and doesn't offend you, I'd love to hear it. > This is silly It is my experience that when people disarm themselves, productive conversations are possible. Perhaps I'm wrong. But if so, then there's no solution anyways. So we might as well try.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      It's hard to believe you care about advancing the conversation when you respond with straw men and ad hominems. Of course, I'm used to it because I challenge positions like yours a lot. Still, the constant need to redirect these bad faith rebuttals is exhausting. To be clear, I don't care much for "my honor". Like I said, I care about making good outcomes politically tenable. As for conspiracy theories, that's literally what "systemic racism" is. And we could talk about it if it weren't for all of the weasel words and slander. If you cared about the conversation, you'd be trying to get rid of the weasel words instead of attacking the people who call them out.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        > It's hard to believe you care about advancing the conversation when you respond with straw men and ad hominems You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a different thread. My apologies. > As for conspiracy theories, that's literally what "systemic racism" is I mean, that's clearly hyperbolic, right? Systemic racism is a real thing -- see red lining or Jim Crow. We can at least agree that the concept is useful and refers to a real phenomenon, even if we're going to debate the severity/degree of that phenomenon in the present. > you'd be trying to get rid of the weasel words I don't think systemic racism is a weasel word. I think it's a well-chosen, evocative, and just damn accurate noun for the concept it represents. Again, do you have an alternative word?
humanrebar 9y ago
It's a very obvious example of a motte and bailey argument. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
- weberc2 9y ago
  It absolutely is, but most of our population lacks a cursory familiarity with rhetoric to the gain of these progressives and other predatory groups. :(
closeparen 9y ago
>which is caused by the correlation between culture and race. Why do you think there's a correlation between culture and race? Could it have something to do with people of color being explicitly excluded from white society as a matter of public policy until, like, 50 years ago?

throwawayjava 9y ago

I believe the reason that the root post is the top-voted comment is that it poses a helpful question: how do we fix this? My suggestion is that people stop being so damn concerned about their moral status and start caring more about actually fixing things. A system with de facto separate and unequal schools is just as bad as a system with de jure separate and unequal schools. Whether that's the result of an emergent phenomenon or explicit planning has little effect on the people stuck in the system. If someone's fragile moral ego gets in the way of an accurate description of the problem... well, that person's ego is the problem. FWIW you see the same problem in flailing engineering projects.

weberc2 9y ago
> My suggestion is that people stop being so damn concerned about their moral status and start caring more about actually fixing things. This is silly. Moral status is a necessary component of political capital. The entire reason the progressive left stuck to their confusing "systemic racism" term is because it conveniently allows them to strip dissidents and critics of the political capital necessary to implement their fixes or even advance the national discourse. Of course, we could think wishfully about a world where politics were irrelevant (as I sometimes do), but that's not productive.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  What alternative term would you use to refer to racially disparate outcomes that are the result of how large systems operate? The term "systemic racism" was coined and stuck because it's evocative of the actual idea, not as some sort of grand conspiracy to strip you of your honor. But I don't care. We can call it "silly putty" if it means we can actually talk about it instead of closely defending our honor. And if you have an alternative name that is evocative of the underlying problem and doesn't offend you, I'd love to hear it. > This is silly It is my experience that when people disarm themselves, productive conversations are possible. Perhaps I'm wrong. But if so, then there's no solution anyways. So we might as well try.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    It's hard to believe you care about advancing the conversation when you respond with straw men and ad hominems. Of course, I'm used to it because I challenge positions like yours a lot. Still, the constant need to redirect these bad faith rebuttals is exhausting. To be clear, I don't care much for "my honor". Like I said, I care about making good outcomes politically tenable. As for conspiracy theories, that's literally what "systemic racism" is. And we could talk about it if it weren't for all of the weasel words and slander. If you cared about the conversation, you'd be trying to get rid of the weasel words instead of attacking the people who call them out.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > It's hard to believe you care about advancing the conversation when you respond with straw men and ad hominems You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a different thread. My apologies. > As for conspiracy theories, that's literally what "systemic racism" is I mean, that's clearly hyperbolic, right? Systemic racism is a real thing -- see red lining or Jim Crow. We can at least agree that the concept is useful and refers to a real phenomenon, even if we're going to debate the severity/degree of that phenomenon in the present. > you'd be trying to get rid of the weasel words I don't think systemic racism is a weasel word. I think it's a well-chosen, evocative, and just damn accurate noun for the concept it represents. Again, do you have an alternative word?

humanrebar 9y ago

It's a very obvious example of a motte and bailey argument. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

weberc2 9y ago
It absolutely is, but most of our population lacks a cursory familiarity with rhetoric to the gain of these progressives and other predatory groups. :(

closeparen 9y ago

>which is caused by the correlation between culture and race. Why do you think there's a correlation between culture and race? Could it have something to do with people of color being explicitly excluded from white society as a matter of public policy until, like, 50 years ago?