3 ms·

You don't have to be thinking "these policies will keep black people down" to enact policies have the exact same effect. And it doesn't make you, in legal and m

by andkon 9y ago

You don't have to be thinking "these policies will keep black people down" to enact policies have the exact same effect. And it doesn't make you, in legal and moral terms, any less culpable for causing those effects, even if they're systemic and emergent.

jerf 9y ago
But if you want to fix the problem, running around looking for the non-existent racists is going to be less effective than finding the real root problem and addressing that. Meanwhile, if you're too busy running around and yelling at everybody that they're racists, which is one of the most vicious slurs in the modern world, you're not only not spending that effort finding the problem, you're actively impeding it.
- andkon 9y ago
  Is it racist to suggest that being called a racist is worse than living under the effects of racism? Probably, yeah. Are you a racist? I don't know; I'd assume not. But I think you're right: calling people racist isn't super useful. Given that this isn't the Jim Crow era, racism works differently. Instead of people being actively, loudly and vociferously racist, we just tend to not notice all the many ways that whiteness helps us out, and then plead innocence when asked why we're not doing more. I mean, think about NIMBYism (or any of the examples above where access to some economic benefit are restricted). White folks have most of the assets; NIMBYism means the world's most vibrant cities become more and more off-limits to non-white folks, who then become even less likely to hold and grow any real assets. I'd call that racist, but again, it doesn't really matter if the people who benefit from racism are Racists with a capital R. They may not hold racist beliefs, and yet they can still benefit from and promote racist systems. We're all complicit in these systems, because they persist today. Denying that, I think, is a way to keep racism working. How do you fix the real root problem without naming racism and the people who benefit from it as in some way complicit in racism? I don't know. "Racist" is a high bar, and it lets us ignore that so many of us are responsible for the persistence of racism.
  - jerf 9y ago
    The problem with your logic is that if applied consistently, it turns motivations and root causes into a non-actionable mush. If it disproportionally affects women, it must be misogynist, and we mustn't ignore that. If it disproportionally affects people from Kentucky, it must be Kentuckiest, and we mustn't ignore that. If it disproportionally affects people with red hair, that's hairist, and we mustn't ignore that. If it disproportionally affects rural peoples, that must be ruralist, and we can't ignore that. The problem is, in the real world, everything correlates with everything. Why are there potholes in the road? Institutional racism, sexism, and ruralism (and everything else). Why is there acid rain? Institutional racism, sexism, and ruralism (and everything else). Why is there a plastic patch in the ocean? Institutional racism, sexism, and ruralism (and everything else). Why are governments everywhere going dangerously into debt, running the risk of defaults? Institutional racism, sexism, and ruralism (and everything else). You need no more stretching for any of those examples than the gymnastics you exhibited in your post. If everything is caused by the same cause, nothing is really caused by that cause. It has no information content. You can't fix anything if you assign everything the same list of root causes without distinction. In trying to do a favor to the victims of racism, you are working very, very hard to ensure that only ineffective methods of solving their problems are deployed. Is that really helpful?
    - andkon 9y ago
      Fortunately, we are armed with radical social justice tools like "empiricism," and are capable of noticing that some outcomes really do look like racism in action. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word? "This happened on our planet" is not indicative of racism; "this happened in a racist society, as a result of policies that began with both racist intentions and which enacted racist outcomes" is. Try not to conflate the words "disproportionately affects" and "systemic discrimination." There are some things that disproportionately affect women, like "being able to become pregnant." That's a mere fact; frustratingly, it turns out to also be a thing that marks someone for systemic discrimination. "Being able to become pregnant" is, on its own, just a boring old fact, and we mustn't do anything about women being able to become pregnant at rates far higher than men. On the other hand, we ought to do something about ongoing misogyny, in all its modern and subtle forms. And yeah, if rural folks are disproportionately affected by a set of beliefs or policies that mark them for lesser treatment and poorer outcomes merely for their being rural dwellers, then we can't ignore that. Do you not understand that there's a difference between people being different, and people being marked for worse treatment because of their difference? I think all I'm asking is that, yes, you do fight against the root cause: the act of marking others for lesser treatment because of their group. If you deny that such a difference is salient to someone's treatment, you have freed yourself from noticing or helping their plight.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > But if you want to fix the problem, running around looking for the non-existent racists is going to be less effective than finding the real root problem and addressing that. On the contrary, if you want to fix the problem, actively ignoring the real and existing racism that caused and is contributing to maintaining the problem is going to be a lot less effective than acknowledging and addressing it and it's mechanisms and effects.

by andkon 9y ago

jerf 9y ago

But if you want to fix the problem, running around looking for the non-existent racists is going to be less effective than finding the real root problem and addressing that. Meanwhile, if you're too busy running around and yelling at everybody that they're racists, which is one of the most vicious slurs in the modern world, you're not only not spending that effort finding the problem, you're actively impeding it.

andkon 9y ago
Is it racist to suggest that being called a racist is worse than living under the effects of racism? Probably, yeah. Are you a racist? I don't know; I'd assume not. But I think you're right: calling people racist isn't super useful. Given that this isn't the Jim Crow era, racism works differently. Instead of people being actively, loudly and vociferously racist, we just tend to not notice all the many ways that whiteness helps us out, and then plead innocence when asked why we're not doing more. I mean, think about NIMBYism (or any of the examples above where access to some economic benefit are restricted). White folks have most of the assets; NIMBYism means the world's most vibrant cities become more and more off-limits to non-white folks, who then become even less likely to hold and grow any real assets. I'd call that racist, but again, it doesn't really matter if the people who benefit from racism are Racists with a capital R. They may not hold racist beliefs, and yet they can still benefit from and promote racist systems. We're all complicit in these systems, because they persist today. Denying that, I think, is a way to keep racism working. How do you fix the real root problem without naming racism and the people who benefit from it as in some way complicit in racism? I don't know. "Racist" is a high bar, and it lets us ignore that so many of us are responsible for the persistence of racism.
- jerf 9y ago
  The problem with your logic is that if applied consistently, it turns motivations and root causes into a non-actionable mush. If it disproportionally affects women, it must be misogynist, and we mustn't ignore that. If it disproportionally affects people from Kentucky, it must be Kentuckiest, and we mustn't ignore that. If it disproportionally affects people with red hair, that's hairist, and we mustn't ignore that. If it disproportionally affects rural peoples, that must be ruralist, and we can't ignore that. The problem is, in the real world, everything correlates with everything. Why are there potholes in the road? Institutional racism, sexism, and ruralism (and everything else). Why is there acid rain? Institutional racism, sexism, and ruralism (and everything else). Why is there a plastic patch in the ocean? Institutional racism, sexism, and ruralism (and everything else). Why are governments everywhere going dangerously into debt, running the risk of defaults? Institutional racism, sexism, and ruralism (and everything else). You need no more stretching for any of those examples than the gymnastics you exhibited in your post. If everything is caused by the same cause, nothing is really caused by that cause. It has no information content. You can't fix anything if you assign everything the same list of root causes without distinction. In trying to do a favor to the victims of racism, you are working very, very hard to ensure that only ineffective methods of solving their problems are deployed. Is that really helpful?
  - andkon 9y ago
    Fortunately, we are armed with radical social justice tools like "empiricism," and are capable of noticing that some outcomes really do look like racism in action. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word? "This happened on our planet" is not indicative of racism; "this happened in a racist society, as a result of policies that began with both racist intentions and which enacted racist outcomes" is. Try not to conflate the words "disproportionately affects" and "systemic discrimination." There are some things that disproportionately affect women, like "being able to become pregnant." That's a mere fact; frustratingly, it turns out to also be a thing that marks someone for systemic discrimination. "Being able to become pregnant" is, on its own, just a boring old fact, and we mustn't do anything about women being able to become pregnant at rates far higher than men. On the other hand, we ought to do something about ongoing misogyny, in all its modern and subtle forms. And yeah, if rural folks are disproportionately affected by a set of beliefs or policies that mark them for lesser treatment and poorer outcomes merely for their being rural dwellers, then we can't ignore that. Do you not understand that there's a difference between people being different, and people being marked for worse treatment because of their difference? I think all I'm asking is that, yes, you do fight against the root cause: the act of marking others for lesser treatment because of their group. If you deny that such a difference is salient to someone's treatment, you have freed yourself from noticing or helping their plight.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> But if you want to fix the problem, running around looking for the non-existent racists is going to be less effective than finding the real root problem and addressing that. On the contrary, if you want to fix the problem, actively ignoring the real and existing racism that caused and is contributing to maintaining the problem is going to be a lot less effective than acknowledging and addressing it and it's mechanisms and effects.