7 ms·

I think most people agree racism exists and is bad. The central conceit of this article, and all the other ones about socially deleterious movements, is the as

I think most people agree racism exists and is bad. The central conceit of this article, and all the other ones about socially deleterious movements, is the assumption that the author is objective enough to identify those movements - which in this case concerns identification of racism going, in their mind, across the line which they see so clearly. I'm always curious about what qualifications or experience they have that makes their vision so clear. Even if I assume for a moment that they see where that line is so clearly compared to others, I have to ask myself if they're identifying a genuine social movement - or if they might be mistaking the ability of the internet to now allow people to say what they think instantly to others, with some kind of new social ill.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mcguire 7y ago
The line is frequently pretty obvious. For one thing, the "you can't be a rebel if you don't wear the right uniform" effect becomes very large; it ceases to be about the purported subject and becomes about saying the right things about the right subjects, about agreeing with the right people in the right way and more importantly about not being different in the wrong way. On the other hand, it may be very hard to see the situation from the inside; I don't know. For another, and I believe this to be invisible from the inside, the reaction begins to be completely out of proportion to the alleged crime. Speaking as someone who decided that knitting wasn't for him because counting is hard, is racism in the knitting community really a big problem? One that requires an emotional response? I mean, I know people who in casual conversation seem to relate skin color to intelligence and common sense. I know people who seem to equate wealth or income to personal worth, or culture, religion, job, or interests with value to society. Whether someone's knitting is too insensitive is way down the list. That line seems reasonably clear in a lot of cases, like the author's Puritans in the American colonies, various communist flaps, young adult books, and yes, knitters. The author's spiral is pretty obvious, too: at some point, if the community doesn't disintegrate first, eventually any difference becomes intolerable (which is spectacularly ironic for a "diversity" issue), all the wheels come off, and the lack of self awareness in many if not most people comes out in all its glory.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  > The line is frequently pretty obvious. Is it? We've identified at least enough people in the knitting community that think it isn't obvious. How can we be sure our definitions of where the line is are consistent with even the general population?
  - mcguire 7y ago
    "On the other hand, it may be very hard to see the situation from the inside; I don't know."
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      I understand, but from my perspective it seems like people on the outside might be having trouble seeing the lines clearly, too.
- jariel 7y ago
  It's even more clear: when you are not allowed to have an opinion based on something you can't control, like your race, for example, you know it's war. 'White Fragility' supporters will effectively deny the opinion of anyone who is White, because of course, 'how could they possibly know?' and 'they are guilty of perpetuating racism by virtue of their Whiteness'. This is 'race war': you are 'guilty' and you 'must apologize profusely and enduringly'. In Scientology, anyone who is against the group is labelled as 'suppressive' - that means, among other things that they don't take the 'suppressive' person's arguments or actions at face value. Don't get into argumentation or rhetoric with a 'suppressive' - just undermine them and destroy them by any means possible. The 'White Fragility' ideology gives people with grievances a very powerful, fascist ideology to validate their anger: "my opponents are wrong by their very nature, and their arguments can have no value". I mean, that's a pretty powerful rhetorical tool, just invalidate whatever anyone else says because of who they are. The Guardian has an article right now about this [1] i.e. White women paying Women of Colour to tell them all the ways that they are racist. It's not without controversy even among attendees. The thing is - most people are willing to examine racial issues on some level. 85% of Republicans believe that racism exists in America. Obviously, these things vary, some narratives are more broadly acceptable than others, but by and large, people are willing to listen at the right time and right occasions. But this kind of toxicity draws some pretty hard battle lines, upon which many otherwise 'allies' will join the other camp or ignore entirely. I've personally become very cynical about the issue, and I believe most popular figures talking about the issue are interested mostly in how people perceive them and not much more, i.e. just enabling the ratcheting. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/race-to-dinner-party-racism-women https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/race-to-dinner...
KODeKarnage 7y ago
> I think most people agree racism exists and is bad. Sure, by the definition of racism that you and I would use. But not by the one that's been weaponised in these purity spirals. By their definition, as explained by the academic interviewed in the podcast, it is literally impossible for someone raised in modern society NOT to be racist. Taking offense at being called a racist is more evidence of racism. Trying to explain how you aren't racist is more evidence of racism. It is like Original sin, but without any path to redemption.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  > not by the one that's been weaponised Ok, but which authority gets to objectively identify when accusations of racism have been weaponised? How do we distinguish between "weaponised" accusations of racism, and legitimate ones?
  - probably_wrong 7y ago
    > Ok, but which authority gets to objectively identify when accusations of racism have been weaponised? No one. If there was such an authority, you wouldn't have a "purity spiral" to begin with.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      So who gets to identify objectively when a purity spiral exists? Almost all people in a "purity spiral" have the impression they're applying the appropriate amount of "purity".
      - circlefavshape 7y ago
        Are you trying to assert that there is no such thing as a purity spiral because there is no objective definition of one, and no authority that can definitively identify one?
TurkishPoptart 7y ago
Agreed. I wish we could make the Slate Star Codex piece "Against Murderism" required reading before anyone makes a social media account.
caconym_ 7y ago
The line is not between what is too racist (or whatever) and what is not. It's between people who are willing to entertain viewpoints different from their own yet held in good faith, and people who use personal attacks and identity-based gatekeeping criteria to shut down discussion, marginalizing their opponents, signaling their virtue to those aligned with them, and generally furthering their social goals. Fundamentally, it's a question of motive and character. This applies as much to the right as it does to the left, etcetera.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  My argument still fundamentally applies to your characterisation of the people involved. Who is the authority that is saying these people are unwilling to entertain different viewpoints? Why does anyone feel they haven't just examined those viewpoints thoroughly and decided they aren't worth holding? Is the motive and character of these people something quantifiable?
  - caconym_ 7y ago
    I don't claim to be able to look inside somebody's head. Would you claim that motive and character do not, in fact, exist? And I don't think your argument applies to these characterizations, actually, because I'm talking about two fundamentally different approaches to discourse: in one you are interested in building up your own argument and crushing the other person's (or deciding you actually agree, or identifying subjective factors and agreeing to disagree, or whatever) and in the other you don't give a shit what they're saying, you just want to shut them up and make yourself look stronger. The motives mirror the rhetorical techniques involved. I'd argue that actually it's fairly clear when somebody's rhetorical strategy falls into one or the other camp, but just like many other parts of the human experience it's not something we can currently express with numbers. If that's your criterion for deciding whether some part of the human experience can be reasoned about, I think you're already overextending yourself by participating in this conversation at all. And it's fine to walk away from a conversation, or jump into the same old argument for the Nth time with no intention of changing your position, or whatever. But if you are going to attack an argument or viewpoint, you need to attack it and not the person behind it. My previous comment did not cover these bases because I wrote it on a smartphone on the bus. Sincerest apologies.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mcguire 7y ago

The line is frequently pretty obvious. For one thing, the "you can't be a rebel if you don't wear the right uniform" effect becomes very large; it ceases to be about the purported subject and becomes about saying the right things about the right subjects, about agreeing with the right people in the right way and more importantly about not being different in the wrong way. On the other hand, it may be very hard to see the situation from the inside; I don't know. For another, and I believe this to be invisible from the inside, the reaction begins to be completely out of proportion to the alleged crime. Speaking as someone who decided that knitting wasn't for him because counting is hard, is racism in the knitting community really a big problem? One that requires an emotional response? I mean, I know people who in casual conversation seem to relate skin color to intelligence and common sense. I know people who seem to equate wealth or income to personal worth, or culture, religion, job, or interests with value to society. Whether someone's knitting is too insensitive is way down the list. That line seems reasonably clear in a lot of cases, like the author's Puritans in the American colonies, various communist flaps, young adult books, and yes, knitters. The author's spiral is pretty obvious, too: at some point, if the community doesn't disintegrate first, eventually any difference becomes intolerable (which is spectacularly ironic for a "diversity" issue), all the wheels come off, and the lack of self awareness in many if not most people comes out in all its glory.

tomlockwood 7y ago
> The line is frequently pretty obvious. Is it? We've identified at least enough people in the knitting community that think it isn't obvious. How can we be sure our definitions of where the line is are consistent with even the general population?
- mcguire 7y ago
  "On the other hand, it may be very hard to see the situation from the inside; I don't know."
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    I understand, but from my perspective it seems like people on the outside might be having trouble seeing the lines clearly, too.
jariel 7y ago
It's even more clear: when you are not allowed to have an opinion based on something you can't control, like your race, for example, you know it's war. 'White Fragility' supporters will effectively deny the opinion of anyone who is White, because of course, 'how could they possibly know?' and 'they are guilty of perpetuating racism by virtue of their Whiteness'. This is 'race war': you are 'guilty' and you 'must apologize profusely and enduringly'. In Scientology, anyone who is against the group is labelled as 'suppressive' - that means, among other things that they don't take the 'suppressive' person's arguments or actions at face value. Don't get into argumentation or rhetoric with a 'suppressive' - just undermine them and destroy them by any means possible. The 'White Fragility' ideology gives people with grievances a very powerful, fascist ideology to validate their anger: "my opponents are wrong by their very nature, and their arguments can have no value". I mean, that's a pretty powerful rhetorical tool, just invalidate whatever anyone else says because of who they are. The Guardian has an article right now about this [1] i.e. White women paying Women of Colour to tell them all the ways that they are racist. It's not without controversy even among attendees. The thing is - most people are willing to examine racial issues on some level. 85% of Republicans believe that racism exists in America. Obviously, these things vary, some narratives are more broadly acceptable than others, but by and large, people are willing to listen at the right time and right occasions. But this kind of toxicity draws some pretty hard battle lines, upon which many otherwise 'allies' will join the other camp or ignore entirely. I've personally become very cynical about the issue, and I believe most popular figures talking about the issue are interested mostly in how people perceive them and not much more, i.e. just enabling the ratcheting. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/race-to-dinner-party-racism-women https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/race-to-dinner...

KODeKarnage 7y ago

> I think most people agree racism exists and is bad. Sure, by the definition of racism that you and I would use. But not by the one that's been weaponised in these purity spirals. By their definition, as explained by the academic interviewed in the podcast, it is literally impossible for someone raised in modern society NOT to be racist. Taking offense at being called a racist is more evidence of racism. Trying to explain how you aren't racist is more evidence of racism. It is like Original sin, but without any path to redemption.

tomlockwood 7y ago
> not by the one that's been weaponised Ok, but which authority gets to objectively identify when accusations of racism have been weaponised? How do we distinguish between "weaponised" accusations of racism, and legitimate ones?
- probably_wrong 7y ago
  > Ok, but which authority gets to objectively identify when accusations of racism have been weaponised? No one. If there was such an authority, you wouldn't have a "purity spiral" to begin with.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    So who gets to identify objectively when a purity spiral exists? Almost all people in a "purity spiral" have the impression they're applying the appropriate amount of "purity".
    - circlefavshape 7y ago
      Are you trying to assert that there is no such thing as a purity spiral because there is no objective definition of one, and no authority that can definitively identify one?

TurkishPoptart 7y ago

Agreed. I wish we could make the Slate Star Codex piece "Against Murderism" required reading before anyone makes a social media account.

caconym_ 7y ago

The line is not between what is too racist (or whatever) and what is not. It's between people who are willing to entertain viewpoints different from their own yet held in good faith, and people who use personal attacks and identity-based gatekeeping criteria to shut down discussion, marginalizing their opponents, signaling their virtue to those aligned with them, and generally furthering their social goals. Fundamentally, it's a question of motive and character. This applies as much to the right as it does to the left, etcetera.

tomlockwood 7y ago
My argument still fundamentally applies to your characterisation of the people involved. Who is the authority that is saying these people are unwilling to entertain different viewpoints? Why does anyone feel they haven't just examined those viewpoints thoroughly and decided they aren't worth holding? Is the motive and character of these people something quantifiable?
- caconym_ 7y ago
  I don't claim to be able to look inside somebody's head. Would you claim that motive and character do not, in fact, exist? And I don't think your argument applies to these characterizations, actually, because I'm talking about two fundamentally different approaches to discourse: in one you are interested in building up your own argument and crushing the other person's (or deciding you actually agree, or identifying subjective factors and agreeing to disagree, or whatever) and in the other you don't give a shit what they're saying, you just want to shut them up and make yourself look stronger. The motives mirror the rhetorical techniques involved. I'd argue that actually it's fairly clear when somebody's rhetorical strategy falls into one or the other camp, but just like many other parts of the human experience it's not something we can currently express with numbers. If that's your criterion for deciding whether some part of the human experience can be reasoned about, I think you're already overextending yourself by participating in this conversation at all. And it's fine to walk away from a conversation, or jump into the same old argument for the Nth time with no intention of changing your position, or whatever. But if you are going to attack an argument or viewpoint, you need to attack it and not the person behind it. My previous comment did not cover these bases because I wrote it on a smartphone on the bus. Sincerest apologies.