5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - allthenews 9y ago
    >empiricism >I think all I'm asking is that, yes, you do fight against the root cause When your body of data is so large, it is easy to mistake cherry picking and associated fallacies for empiricism. >if rural folks are disproportionately affected by a set of beliefs...we can't ignore that We can if these policies create more good than harm. Furthermore, even in this example, whether the issue is classism or collateral effects, although people would be quick to scream racism if we replaced "rural" with black, without sufficient evidence of racist intent. The biggest problem I see with a mindset like this is that the conflation of equality of opportunity with equality of outcome leads to policies which forgo merit to correct imagined racism. And we end up with less competent firefighters, law officers, doctors, lawyers, etc; and by lowering standards to attempt to force equity, all of society is worse off.
coldtea 9y ago
>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. There's also the fact that many people are indeed, openly or covertly, racist. Just because it's not mentioned in "polite company", and surely not in the kind of circle most Bay area programmers frequent, doesn't mean they don't exist. And this includes government officials, judges, bankers, and so on...
- andkon 9y ago
  True. I think that a lot of folks think racism will end if those people just stop being openly racist, though, which is silly.
spacehome 9y ago
There are real racists in America. There are also systems that are in effect racist. But there are also real differences between whites and blacks and other races, and there are real differences between their cultures. A difference in outcomes is insufficient to tell whether the cause is racism. It's quite tricky to prove how much of any difference is due to external racism.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > There are real racists in America. There are also systems that are in effect racist. But there are also real differences between whites and blacks and other races, and there are real differences between their cultures. The former pair are contributing causes to the latter pair (and especially the last.)

by andkon 9y ago

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.
- allthenews 9y ago
  >empiricism >I think all I'm asking is that, yes, you do fight against the root cause When your body of data is so large, it is easy to mistake cherry picking and associated fallacies for empiricism. >if rural folks are disproportionately affected by a set of beliefs...we can't ignore that We can if these policies create more good than harm. Furthermore, even in this example, whether the issue is classism or collateral effects, although people would be quick to scream racism if we replaced "rural" with black, without sufficient evidence of racist intent. The biggest problem I see with a mindset like this is that the conflation of equality of opportunity with equality of outcome leads to policies which forgo merit to correct imagined racism. And we end up with less competent firefighters, law officers, doctors, lawyers, etc; and by lowering standards to attempt to force equity, all of society is worse off.

coldtea 9y ago

>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. There's also the fact that many people are indeed, openly or covertly, racist. Just because it's not mentioned in "polite company", and surely not in the kind of circle most Bay area programmers frequent, doesn't mean they don't exist. And this includes government officials, judges, bankers, and so on...

andkon 9y ago
True. I think that a lot of folks think racism will end if those people just stop being openly racist, though, which is silly.

spacehome 9y ago

There are real racists in America. There are also systems that are in effect racist. But there are also real differences between whites and blacks and other races, and there are real differences between their cultures. A difference in outcomes is insufficient to tell whether the cause is racism. It's quite tricky to prove how much of any difference is due to external racism.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> There are real racists in America. There are also systems that are in effect racist. But there are also real differences between whites and blacks and other races, and there are real differences between their cultures. The former pair are contributing causes to the latter pair (and especially the last.)