3 ms·

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 bei

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?
      - weberc2 9y ago
        > You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a different thread. My apologies. Thank you for the apology; I understand the cumulative frustration bit. Hopefully I wasn't the cause of the frustration in the other thread. > Again, do you have an alternative word? I would say "disparate outcomes that correlate with race" or some such. I don't object to "systemic racism" when it specifically means "disparate outcomes caused by racism" (e.g., redlining and jim crow); however, it's often used as a blanket term for any racial disparity whether or not there is evidence that it's actually part of the system and not simply the result of different choices made by different groups, or an artifact of documented historical oppression. In the latter case, its effect is to shut down any conversation about the actual cause of the disparity, because anyone who questions the systemic racism explanation is guilty of endorsing racism. So if that's not a weasel word, it's something similarly nefarious and inhibitive of dialog. I really think all parties (or at least those who aren't threatened by advancing the dialog) are better served by clear, meaningful terms, and I don't think that's what we have with "systemic racism". Insofar as it means what you say, then it's grossly and widely misused, which has the same effect as if the word were meaningless to begin with.

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?
    - weberc2 9y ago
      > You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a different thread. My apologies. Thank you for the apology; I understand the cumulative frustration bit. Hopefully I wasn't the cause of the frustration in the other thread. > Again, do you have an alternative word? I would say "disparate outcomes that correlate with race" or some such. I don't object to "systemic racism" when it specifically means "disparate outcomes caused by racism" (e.g., redlining and jim crow); however, it's often used as a blanket term for any racial disparity whether or not there is evidence that it's actually part of the system and not simply the result of different choices made by different groups, or an artifact of documented historical oppression. In the latter case, its effect is to shut down any conversation about the actual cause of the disparity, because anyone who questions the systemic racism explanation is guilty of endorsing racism. So if that's not a weasel word, it's something similarly nefarious and inhibitive of dialog. I really think all parties (or at least those who aren't threatened by advancing the dialog) are better served by clear, meaningful terms, and I don't think that's what we have with "systemic racism". Insofar as it means what you say, then it's grossly and widely misused, which has the same effect as if the word were meaningless to begin with.