4 ms·

As a non-American outside view, my guess is that the socially-left view systemic racism as a big problem, so think about it, talk about it, and advocate policie

by rfrey 8y ago

As a non-American outside view, my guess is that the socially-left view systemic racism as a big problem, so think about it, talk about it, and advocate policies to combat it. The socially-right believe America's meritocracy instincts are stronger than systemic racism, so don't talk or think about race as much. It seems like it has more to do with one's views of the relative position of cultural values ("America is pretty good at equality of opportunity" vs. "America has some important systemic challenges around race that compromise equality") rather than level of racism on either side. Unfortunately that difference seems to get misinterpreted both ways - with one side thinking (and saying) the others are racist because they don't support various race-targeted policies (or talk about systemic racism all the time), and the other side accusing the social-left of creating divides and problems by stoking race issues.

jamescostian 8y ago
I like your intro to the topic, and how it's nice to both sides. But you're drawing quite the straw man when you say > one side thinking (and saying) the others are racists because they don't support various race-targeted policies (or talk about systemic racism all the time) This completely ignores the actual racism that exists, and makes the social left out to be some group of insanely judgemental people that are so furious for reasons as small as "[people don't] talk about systemic racism all the time" I don't know anyone who's mad about people not talking about systemic racism all the time. But I do know a lot of people who are furious about racism, and they talk about racism much more than "omg can you believe that someone doesn't support Affirmative Action" Or "wow, this person isn't thinking about systemic racism 24/7? How racist of them!" Yes, people do discuss "race-targeted policies", and people can get judged for not agreeing with them. And although a certain degree of tribalism definitely exists (on both sides), if someone could provide me a good, clear argument against a "race-targeted policy" that also accounts for the issues that policy seeks to fix, then I'd happily agree with them (and not think they were racist). It's a shame so many discussions about those policies end up being arguments over the definition of racism (instead of, you know, how to lessen its extent and effects), and that is the problem with both sides.
- rfrey 8y ago
  When I talk to people who claim race is not a significant issue (I'm in Canada, so it's usually about discussions about indigenous people - that's where Canada concentrates its systemic racism), I always ask them to consider why, if there is no issue, do so many people in that community think that there is an issue? An important facet of systemic racism is that it can be invisible if you're not affected, so you have to listen to those who are affected and not assume your own experience reflects societal reality. You may agree with that - if you do, I'll turn it around on you and ask - if what I said was a blatant strawman, why does it seem like the majority of the social-right in America think that the social-left automatically consider them racists? That's a message I hear continuously from the American right-leaning press. Either there really is something there; or the media is misrepresenting how the right-leaning community thinks; or the right-leaning community thinks that but are flat-out wrong. I also hear all three things when discussing systemic racism - it is really there; the media and academics are whipping up a problem where none exists; or the people in question do think there's a problem, but they're wrong and should get on with life. You seemed to take offense at what I think was a pretty gentle characterization the tribalism seems to dominate discussion nowadays. (Well, offense at my description of one side of it, anyhow.) I think there's a parallel between your response to me and the response many socially-right people have toward systemic racism. I don't think either are helpful to discourse or solutions.
  - jamescostian 8y ago
    > why does it seem like the majority of the social-right in America think that the social-left automatically consider them racists? > media and academics are whipping up a problem where none exists TL;DR: a large number of social-right people say very racist things. Here's the long version. I feel like you're completely ignoring the fact that racism exists, and ignoring all of the racist comments made by social-right. It feels disingenuous, but if you honestly don't see the social-right making racist comments, please look into what Republicans in America say. Here's an example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/05/03/neo-nazi-california-senate/579612002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018... Of course, that's not representative of all Republicans. For example, read the first and third paragraph of this: https://politi.co/2xDyEqc https://politi.co/2xDyEqc and you'll see an example of one republican being very racist, and another (DeSantis) denouncing that racism. But here's a list of things DeSantis has also said: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/eight-times-ron-desantis-did-racist-stuff-by-accident-10687534 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/eight-times-ron-desantis-... While you might not consider all of those things racist, I'm sure you can agree that some of them are. You aren't outwardly denying that social-right people say racist things, but you aren't factoring it in either. > You seemed to take offense ... I think there's a parallel between your response to me and the response many socially-right people have toward systemic racism I agree tribalism is bad. In hopes of not being tribalistic, I'm providing you with lots of clear explanations and evidence so that we're on the same page. I'll explain my offense again. You said this: >>> one side thinking (and saying) the others are racists because they don't support various race-targeted policies (or talk about systemic racism all the time) If you read through my links of racist rhetoric Republicans use, you should be able to see why it's outrageous to say that people of the social-left are mad about social-right not talking about racism all the time. Social-left people are mad about the racist things social-right say.

by rfrey 8y ago

jamescostian 8y ago

I like your intro to the topic, and how it's nice to both sides. But you're drawing quite the straw man when you say > one side thinking (and saying) the others are racists because they don't support various race-targeted policies (or talk about systemic racism all the time) This completely ignores the actual racism that exists, and makes the social left out to be some group of insanely judgemental people that are so furious for reasons as small as "[people don't] talk about systemic racism all the time" I don't know anyone who's mad about people not talking about systemic racism all the time. But I do know a lot of people who are furious about racism, and they talk about racism much more than "omg can you believe that someone doesn't support Affirmative Action" Or "wow, this person isn't thinking about systemic racism 24/7? How racist of them!" Yes, people do discuss "race-targeted policies", and people can get judged for not agreeing with them. And although a certain degree of tribalism definitely exists (on both sides), if someone could provide me a good, clear argument against a "race-targeted policy" that also accounts for the issues that policy seeks to fix, then I'd happily agree with them (and not think they were racist). It's a shame so many discussions about those policies end up being arguments over the definition of racism (instead of, you know, how to lessen its extent and effects), and that is the problem with both sides.

rfrey 8y ago
When I talk to people who claim race is not a significant issue (I'm in Canada, so it's usually about discussions about indigenous people - that's where Canada concentrates its systemic racism), I always ask them to consider why, if there is no issue, do so many people in that community think that there is an issue? An important facet of systemic racism is that it can be invisible if you're not affected, so you have to listen to those who are affected and not assume your own experience reflects societal reality. You may agree with that - if you do, I'll turn it around on you and ask - if what I said was a blatant strawman, why does it seem like the majority of the social-right in America think that the social-left automatically consider them racists? That's a message I hear continuously from the American right-leaning press. Either there really is something there; or the media is misrepresenting how the right-leaning community thinks; or the right-leaning community thinks that but are flat-out wrong. I also hear all three things when discussing systemic racism - it is really there; the media and academics are whipping up a problem where none exists; or the people in question do think there's a problem, but they're wrong and should get on with life. You seemed to take offense at what I think was a pretty gentle characterization the tribalism seems to dominate discussion nowadays. (Well, offense at my description of one side of it, anyhow.) I think there's a parallel between your response to me and the response many socially-right people have toward systemic racism. I don't think either are helpful to discourse or solutions.
- jamescostian 8y ago
  > why does it seem like the majority of the social-right in America think that the social-left automatically consider them racists? > media and academics are whipping up a problem where none exists TL;DR: a large number of social-right people say very racist things. Here's the long version. I feel like you're completely ignoring the fact that racism exists, and ignoring all of the racist comments made by social-right. It feels disingenuous, but if you honestly don't see the social-right making racist comments, please look into what Republicans in America say. Here's an example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/05/03/neo-nazi-california-senate/579612002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018... Of course, that's not representative of all Republicans. For example, read the first and third paragraph of this: https://politi.co/2xDyEqc https://politi.co/2xDyEqc and you'll see an example of one republican being very racist, and another (DeSantis) denouncing that racism. But here's a list of things DeSantis has also said: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/eight-times-ron-desantis-did-racist-stuff-by-accident-10687534 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/eight-times-ron-desantis-... While you might not consider all of those things racist, I'm sure you can agree that some of them are. You aren't outwardly denying that social-right people say racist things, but you aren't factoring it in either. > You seemed to take offense ... I think there's a parallel between your response to me and the response many socially-right people have toward systemic racism I agree tribalism is bad. In hopes of not being tribalistic, I'm providing you with lots of clear explanations and evidence so that we're on the same page. I'll explain my offense again. You said this: >>> one side thinking (and saying) the others are racists because they don't support various race-targeted policies (or talk about systemic racism all the time) If you read through my links of racist rhetoric Republicans use, you should be able to see why it's outrageous to say that people of the social-left are mad about social-right not talking about racism all the time. Social-left people are mad about the racist things social-right say.