4 ms·

"If you did this differently people would react differently".

by lazyasciiart 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago
Is racism wrong in principle, or only for certain skin colors?
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  Racism is wrong when it creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race. You can discriminate based on skin color and have it not be racism, if what you're doing isn't generating a power structure to build up one group to dominate another. Having a discussion where only black people can talk, and only white people can listen, isn't racism: it's one-way communication (or rather, one-sided communication). I'd argue that in certain cases, we need that.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > when it creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race How do you know, with certainty, when this is happening, and when it isn't? Do you ever consider the possibility that you might be causing harm to your cause when you are trying to promote it? For example, when you offload judgement to hyper-efficient but highly error prone subconscious heuristics, with no review for correctness and prudence at the conscious level.
  - defertoreptar 7y ago
    Isn't a rule that says people of one skin color are not allowed to have a voice in and of itself such a power structure?
    - peterwwillis 7y ago
      It doesn't dominate the other, it makes room so that one side can be heard. Look at it like kids on a playground. If there are a bunch of bullies picking on little kids, and you tell the bullies that for an hour a day, they aren't allowed to go near the little kids, is that a power structure set up to dominate the bullies? No; the little kids just needed a break! The bullies still have their power the rest of the time (and you haven't actually taken away anything from the bullies but their ability to bully; they can go about their lives as normal everywhere else) Everyone keeps getting hung up on "there's a rule about skin color!" Yeah, there is, as a response to constant systemic racism forcing marginalized people to find a safe space. Turns out the world is complex.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        > Turns out the world is complex. Indeed it is. Can you make a solid case that your claim that "constant systemic racism forcing marginalized people to find a safe space" is as conclusively true in the real world as your simplistic imaginary playground example? If your case is indeed valid, facts should suffice should they not?
        mistermann 7y ago
        I will take the downvote without reply as a "no" to both my questions. The interesting thing about such interactions is I suspect your mind remains as ever confident as before....you can't articulate a logical defense of your beliefs, yet this fact has absolutely no bearing on the strength of the belief.
- brownbat 7y ago
  I have a friend whose family is Swedish and is a fan of Sven and Ollie jokes. It's not very charged when he tells them, even though they are technically jokes about nationalities. I've often wondered, why is it harder to muster outrage over those? Best I can figure, racism has more salience when you are magnifying harms to historically marginalized groups. Not saying it's ever noble, but situations vary, so impacts vary.
  - kthejoker2 7y ago
    I don't know that it's racist to have universal jokes with two stock characters and to choose common names for them? I'm sure some of those same jokes showed up on a McKenzie Brothers skit or Sanford and Son or Flight of the Conchords or Rahmens or Alternatino without loss of generality. It's because the context is always "these characters are stupid" not "people like these characters are stupid." And thinking about it more, I think the key difference is they have a name. That alone makes them a unique person. It's not "black guys do this, white guys do that" or even "an Irishman walks into a bar." Giving them a name means you can distance yourself from them and not feel offended that Sven is stupid, whereas if it was "A dumb Swede" you'd be offended.
    - brownbat 7y ago
      My Swedish and Norwegian friends see the characters as stand-ins for nationalities, but sure, happy to ditch that hypo if you don't find it compelling. It was just one possible illustration of the broader point: the salience of racism seems at least somewhat related to the extent of the harm, and the harms from racism aren't evenly distributed. I could see someone endorsing the view that racism is always wrong and yet still worse in some situations. Like, stealing a loaf of bread from a baker is wrong, but stealing a loaf of bread from a starving family is especially cruel. I'm not an expert here or anything. I don't want to come off like I have it all figured out, I don't.
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      A name doesn't mean people are considering them as individuals. Famous examples of named 'stereotype representatives' include Paddy for the Irish (https://thomasnastcartoons.com/irish-catholic-cartoons/irish-stereotype/ https://thomasnastcartoons.com/irish-catholic-cartoons/irish...), and Jerry for the Germans.

"If you did this differently people would react differently".

mistermann 7y ago

Is racism wrong in principle, or only for certain skin colors?

peterwwillis 7y ago
Racism is wrong when it creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race. You can discriminate based on skin color and have it not be racism, if what you're doing isn't generating a power structure to build up one group to dominate another. Having a discussion where only black people can talk, and only white people can listen, isn't racism: it's one-way communication (or rather, one-sided communication). I'd argue that in certain cases, we need that.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > when it creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race How do you know, with certainty, when this is happening, and when it isn't? Do you ever consider the possibility that you might be causing harm to your cause when you are trying to promote it? For example, when you offload judgement to hyper-efficient but highly error prone subconscious heuristics, with no review for correctness and prudence at the conscious level.
- defertoreptar 7y ago
  Isn't a rule that says people of one skin color are not allowed to have a voice in and of itself such a power structure?
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    It doesn't dominate the other, it makes room so that one side can be heard. Look at it like kids on a playground. If there are a bunch of bullies picking on little kids, and you tell the bullies that for an hour a day, they aren't allowed to go near the little kids, is that a power structure set up to dominate the bullies? No; the little kids just needed a break! The bullies still have their power the rest of the time (and you haven't actually taken away anything from the bullies but their ability to bully; they can go about their lives as normal everywhere else) Everyone keeps getting hung up on "there's a rule about skin color!" Yeah, there is, as a response to constant systemic racism forcing marginalized people to find a safe space. Turns out the world is complex.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      > Turns out the world is complex. Indeed it is. Can you make a solid case that your claim that "constant systemic racism forcing marginalized people to find a safe space" is as conclusively true in the real world as your simplistic imaginary playground example? If your case is indeed valid, facts should suffice should they not?
      - mistermann 7y ago
        I will take the downvote without reply as a "no" to both my questions. The interesting thing about such interactions is I suspect your mind remains as ever confident as before....you can't articulate a logical defense of your beliefs, yet this fact has absolutely no bearing on the strength of the belief.
brownbat 7y ago
I have a friend whose family is Swedish and is a fan of Sven and Ollie jokes. It's not very charged when he tells them, even though they are technically jokes about nationalities. I've often wondered, why is it harder to muster outrage over those? Best I can figure, racism has more salience when you are magnifying harms to historically marginalized groups. Not saying it's ever noble, but situations vary, so impacts vary.
- kthejoker2 7y ago
  I don't know that it's racist to have universal jokes with two stock characters and to choose common names for them? I'm sure some of those same jokes showed up on a McKenzie Brothers skit or Sanford and Son or Flight of the Conchords or Rahmens or Alternatino without loss of generality. It's because the context is always "these characters are stupid" not "people like these characters are stupid." And thinking about it more, I think the key difference is they have a name. That alone makes them a unique person. It's not "black guys do this, white guys do that" or even "an Irishman walks into a bar." Giving them a name means you can distance yourself from them and not feel offended that Sven is stupid, whereas if it was "A dumb Swede" you'd be offended.
  - brownbat 7y ago
    My Swedish and Norwegian friends see the characters as stand-ins for nationalities, but sure, happy to ditch that hypo if you don't find it compelling. It was just one possible illustration of the broader point: the salience of racism seems at least somewhat related to the extent of the harm, and the harms from racism aren't evenly distributed. I could see someone endorsing the view that racism is always wrong and yet still worse in some situations. Like, stealing a loaf of bread from a baker is wrong, but stealing a loaf of bread from a starving family is especially cruel. I'm not an expert here or anything. I don't want to come off like I have it all figured out, I don't.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    A name doesn't mean people are considering them as individuals. Famous examples of named 'stereotype representatives' include Paddy for the Irish (https://thomasnastcartoons.com/irish-catholic-cartoons/irish-stereotype/ https://thomasnastcartoons.com/irish-catholic-cartoons/irish...), and Jerry for the Germans.