8 ms·

I think the trouble here is the double meaning of the word racist. When some people hear the word, they think of cross-burning fanatics and mass murderers. On t

I think the trouble here is the double meaning of the word racist. When some people hear the word, they think of cross-burning fanatics and mass murderers. On the other hand, the current big conversation is about how everyone is racist and that society is rife with systemic racism. That creates a catch-22 for anyone who commits a faux-pas (like mistaking the black CEO for a subordinate). Either admit to racism and cast oneself in with the cross-burners, or bail out of the situation ASAP. We have the same kind of problem with the label of "sex offender." It's a category that runs the gamut from "guy who got arrested for public urination while walking home drunk from the bar one night" all the way to Jeffrey Dahmer. Scott over at Slate Star Codex has a fantastic piece that covers this phenomenon [1]. The core idea has to do with the tension between central and non-central examples of a category: Remember, people think in terms of categories with central and noncentral members – a sparrow is a central bird, an ostrich a noncentral one. But if you live on the Ostrich World, which is inhabited only by ostriches, emus, and cassowaries, then probably an ostrich seems like a pretty central example of ‘bird’ and the first sparrow you see will be fantastically strange. I'm glad we're having this conversation in society. I honestly don't know what to do about it though. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap...

birdyrooster 6y ago
Try approaching someone in denial about their alcoholism and talk about alcoholism they will act very similarly. These people need rehab.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I think that's a reasonable analogy but I draw the opposite conclusion from it. If you divide the world into alcoholics who need rehab and normal people who don't, you end up with a lot of people who refuse to admit they have a drinking problem because they don't want to pay the social costs of doing so.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    Something many alcoholics and nearly all non-alcoholics have in common is they deny being alcoholics. P(Alcoholism|Denial of Alcoholism) = P(Denial of Alcoholism|Alcoholism) * P(Alcoholism) / P(Denial of Alcoholism) Pop in any reasonable numbers for those terms and it becomes readily apparent that denial of alcoholism does not constitute meaningful evidence of alcoholism.
somethoughts 6y ago
Yes - perhaps if the current big conversation was rephrased as "everyone is biased and that society is rife with systemic bias" - people would be more willing to agree that its a problem and agree that they are part of the problem and would be more willing to be involved in solving it. To be honest - everyone, no matter who they are, makes judgements and has biases.
- mongol 6y ago
  For sure. Bias is a much better word to use here, unless your goal is to project ill will on the person you describe.
- itronitron 6y ago
  Well, there are people that are racist. They are easy to spot because they make no apology about that. There is also systemic, or institutionalized, racism and the current state of law enforcement in the US is a prime example of that. What is interesting is how the systemic racism bleeds into everyone else's minds to form or reinforce their biases. If we can eliminate systemic/institutionalized racism then I would expect that most people's personal biases will eventually disappear.
  - somethoughts 6y ago
    Yes definitely there is a group of people who are outright racist in the typically defined sense. And the group which can self-identify as racist is probably very small (unfortunately). The group which can self-identify as biased is probably much larger (fortunately?). The challenge is that by naming/labeling the big discussion systemic racism, its possible for a much larger (and perhaps more influential) group of people to blissfully ignore the big discussion being had about both systemic racism and systemic implicit bias - the latter of which to a certain extent the original article seems to be about.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      >a group of people who are outright racist // That group is perhaps ironically the most racial diverse group one could conceive.
JPKab 6y ago
" I honestly don't know what to do about it though." That's a major criticism I have of the crusaders against "systemic racism." While I think the term is intended to capture the accumulated, "death by a thousand cuts" set of disadvantages that are faced by marginalized groups, it characterizes the problem in such a way that it makes it seem intractable. This is a perfect framing for politicians and activists, whose focus (IMHO) is on getting people mobilized by describing/raising awareness about problems, rather than actually solving them. To me, when somebody describes specific examples of "systemic racism", I am immediately able to suddenly identify specific actions that can be taken to address each tractable problem. Replace "America is inherently racist" with "End Qualified Immunity" and "ensure public schools share funding across regions", etc. I think framing things like this makes the problems more solvable and far less politically useful for the demagogues.
- zo1 6y ago
  Now that you mention it, it reminds me of another big "movement" that has a very nebulous problem statement with no clear instances of the problem to solve: Climate Change. Well, at least no problems + solution combinations that people are willing to do.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Both movements propose very concrete solutions for the respective problems. Both problem statements are also very clear to begin with. And there seem to be quite a lot of people willing to implement said solutions.
- franctic 6y ago
  This point of view is out of line with my experiences surrounding discussions of systemic racism. My experience has included detailed demands with qualitative and quantitative targets made at my place of work, codified changes in the structure of the police department in the city I live in, and new state laws regarding use-of-force passed in the last few weeks alone. I think there’s lots of discussion going on around what will enact effective change (and what won’t), which is fair, but I feel your painting with a very broad brush to say people are crusading and assuming the problem to be intractable. Hard for me to imagine all this effort coming from people who think there’s nothing to be gained. I’m not sure I fully appreciate the point your making with breaking down the idea “America is inherently racist.” Outside of Twitter I’ve encountered exactly zero conversations that start and immediately end with such a statement. Of course things like qualified immunity and equitable education come into play - these topics have been heavily discussed in the public sphere for decades! To link them in this case to speak to a community’s broader experience seems both reasonable and necessary. For a light hearted analogy — say I get a burrito from a taqueria on Monday and shit my pants and then go back Tuesday for tacos and shit myself again. When I’m retelling that story on Wednesday over sushi, you’d better believe I’m using the name of the restaurant.
SI_Rob 6y ago
the deep problem, to me, is that nuance and complexity are self-censoring. any position that doesn't losslessly compress into a chant or a rally cry or 240 characters is effectively censored by its own unfitness for the infrastructure of mass propagation. this ultimately favors certain corners of the anti-censorship crowd, for you can be vocally against censorship while knowing full well that it is the most overbroad, reductionist and populist strains of messaging that prevail under such conditions.
wolco 6y ago
The whole thing makes white people subconsciously want to avoid minorities because of the risk of mob punishment if they fail to follow new rules being created for conduct. Same thing happened after me too where many men were afraid to risk power for a real life hookup with the risks involved and have opted out for paided (where legal) risk free transactions. Which in turn has reduced the amount of relationships in general and made everyone lonely.
- dash2 6y ago
  Interesting idea, but is there any evidence for it?
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  I can assure you that many older professional white men are conciously avoiding 1:1 interactions with women (moreso those under 40) and minorities in the workplace today. It would be dumb to assume this doesn’t impact managers hiring decisions, conciously or unconciously. Olds can just think of it as culture fit.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    If true, it says a lot more about the men than anything else.
    - wolco 6y ago
      Perhaps not men but human nature. Avoiding conflict is not a male trait.
    - the_omegist 6y ago
      Oh : acting in your best interests is "telling", so? Strange : society and "systems" are responsible for everything when it's about certain people but individuality and personal responsibility are the reason when it's other type of people...
- hef19898 6y ago
  I would love to get some more details, ideally sources, for the last paragraph.
zapita 6y ago
The problem you describe, of the double meaning of the term “racism”, is very real, but only among white people. When communicating with a Black CEO, you can safely assume that they understand the true meaning of the term, from experiencing it every day. And as a result will appreciate the admission and apology. The second mistake to avoid is to not expect a medal, so to speak, for doing the bare minimum. In my experience that is a common pattern: demonstrating a basic understanding of systemic racism, then expecting to be treated as a hero for it - then being disappointed when we’re (understandably) not. Sometimes this can be quite exhausting to someone targeted by racism, because it adds to their mental burden instead of lightening it.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
Somehow you proposed a "double meaning" of racism and missed the actual meaning that's being addressed by our society. Racism isn't about personal prejudice, although it's certainly a participation trophy for them. Racism is not about who is burning crosses, or about who is born into privilege. Racism is a system, a set of rules, rites, privileges and laws that puts 100% of POC at a disadvantage, and 100% of white people at an advantage, regardless of the rest of their social status. The advantage can range from "more likely to be taken seriously in a board meeting" to "more likely to end up dead for no reason at all", with a ridiculous amount of "more likely to end up prison labor" in the middle. Not everyone experiences the system exactly the same way, but even the most privileged POC are likely to point it out, and even the most unprivileged white people are likely to dismiss it as nonexistent. It doesn't take a single prejudiced person to enact it. It's built into the laws and the systems and considered "neutral".
- jlawson 6y ago
  >Racism is a system, a set of rules, rites, privileges and laws that puts 100% of POC at a disadvantage, and 100% of white people at an advantage, regardless of the rest of their social status. Can you give any specific examples of these rules and laws? I assume you mean rules and laws that are actually written down. I'm interested because while it's easy to find rules and laws that are explicitly 100% to the advantage of non-whites over whites (affirmative action, Gladue in Canada, etc), I've not been able to find any that work the other way around. (Also worth noting "more likely to end up dead for no reason at all" isn't actually true[0]; there's no statistical evidence that cops kill blacks more than whites in comparable situations.) [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evi...
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > Can you give any specific examples of these rules and laws? I assume you mean rules and laws that are actually written down. The 13th Amendment is a pretty big one, worth starting there. > I'm interested because while it's easy to find rules and laws that are explicitly 100% to the advantage of non-whites over whites (affirmative action, Gladue in Canada, etc), I've not been able to find any that work the other way around. If your criteria is that it must be "explicit", you're dismissing the entire concept without considering it. These laws and rules take advantage of context and produce predictable outcomes without needing to put on a white robe and state their intent. > (Also worth noting "more likely to end up dead for no reason at all" isn't actually true[0]; there's no statistical evidence that cops kill blacks more than whites in comparable situations.) > [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evi.. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evi.... I can't get past the paywall, but it is actually true. What I can see above the paywall fold doesn't even represent your claim. And even if it did, "in comparable situations" isn't the criteria. Cops can (hypothetically) behave equally violently in all situations, and still be more likely to kill black people because they police black people and communities more.
hef19898 6y ago
If it is a faux-pas, an immediate excuss is the solution. At least for mature people. There is no explicit racism involved in the CEO example, as long as you treated both persons decently and politely and only misjudged the ranks. The sex offender thing looks a lot like a straw man argument, so. When I think about racists, yes KK Nazis and so on come to mind. But more often I think about the daily, systematic racism white folks show towars people of colour, migrants, other religions. More often than not accompanied by discriminating women and the LGBTQ community.

birdyrooster 6y ago

Try approaching someone in denial about their alcoholism and talk about alcoholism they will act very similarly. These people need rehab.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I think that's a reasonable analogy but I draw the opposite conclusion from it. If you divide the world into alcoholics who need rehab and normal people who don't, you end up with a lot of people who refuse to admit they have a drinking problem because they don't want to pay the social costs of doing so.
- catalogia 6y ago
  Something many alcoholics and nearly all non-alcoholics have in common is they deny being alcoholics. P(Alcoholism|Denial of Alcoholism) = P(Denial of Alcoholism|Alcoholism) * P(Alcoholism) / P(Denial of Alcoholism) Pop in any reasonable numbers for those terms and it becomes readily apparent that denial of alcoholism does not constitute meaningful evidence of alcoholism.

somethoughts 6y ago

Yes - perhaps if the current big conversation was rephrased as "everyone is biased and that society is rife with systemic bias" - people would be more willing to agree that its a problem and agree that they are part of the problem and would be more willing to be involved in solving it. To be honest - everyone, no matter who they are, makes judgements and has biases.

mongol 6y ago
For sure. Bias is a much better word to use here, unless your goal is to project ill will on the person you describe.
itronitron 6y ago
Well, there are people that are racist. They are easy to spot because they make no apology about that. There is also systemic, or institutionalized, racism and the current state of law enforcement in the US is a prime example of that. What is interesting is how the systemic racism bleeds into everyone else's minds to form or reinforce their biases. If we can eliminate systemic/institutionalized racism then I would expect that most people's personal biases will eventually disappear.
- somethoughts 6y ago
  Yes definitely there is a group of people who are outright racist in the typically defined sense. And the group which can self-identify as racist is probably very small (unfortunately). The group which can self-identify as biased is probably much larger (fortunately?). The challenge is that by naming/labeling the big discussion systemic racism, its possible for a much larger (and perhaps more influential) group of people to blissfully ignore the big discussion being had about both systemic racism and systemic implicit bias - the latter of which to a certain extent the original article seems to be about.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    >a group of people who are outright racist // That group is perhaps ironically the most racial diverse group one could conceive.

JPKab 6y ago

" I honestly don't know what to do about it though." That's a major criticism I have of the crusaders against "systemic racism." While I think the term is intended to capture the accumulated, "death by a thousand cuts" set of disadvantages that are faced by marginalized groups, it characterizes the problem in such a way that it makes it seem intractable. This is a perfect framing for politicians and activists, whose focus (IMHO) is on getting people mobilized by describing/raising awareness about problems, rather than actually solving them. To me, when somebody describes specific examples of "systemic racism", I am immediately able to suddenly identify specific actions that can be taken to address each tractable problem. Replace "America is inherently racist" with "End Qualified Immunity" and "ensure public schools share funding across regions", etc. I think framing things like this makes the problems more solvable and far less politically useful for the demagogues.

zo1 6y ago
Now that you mention it, it reminds me of another big "movement" that has a very nebulous problem statement with no clear instances of the problem to solve: Climate Change. Well, at least no problems + solution combinations that people are willing to do.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Both movements propose very concrete solutions for the respective problems. Both problem statements are also very clear to begin with. And there seem to be quite a lot of people willing to implement said solutions.
franctic 6y ago
This point of view is out of line with my experiences surrounding discussions of systemic racism. My experience has included detailed demands with qualitative and quantitative targets made at my place of work, codified changes in the structure of the police department in the city I live in, and new state laws regarding use-of-force passed in the last few weeks alone. I think there’s lots of discussion going on around what will enact effective change (and what won’t), which is fair, but I feel your painting with a very broad brush to say people are crusading and assuming the problem to be intractable. Hard for me to imagine all this effort coming from people who think there’s nothing to be gained. I’m not sure I fully appreciate the point your making with breaking down the idea “America is inherently racist.” Outside of Twitter I’ve encountered exactly zero conversations that start and immediately end with such a statement. Of course things like qualified immunity and equitable education come into play - these topics have been heavily discussed in the public sphere for decades! To link them in this case to speak to a community’s broader experience seems both reasonable and necessary. For a light hearted analogy — say I get a burrito from a taqueria on Monday and shit my pants and then go back Tuesday for tacos and shit myself again. When I’m retelling that story on Wednesday over sushi, you’d better believe I’m using the name of the restaurant.

SI_Rob 6y ago

the deep problem, to me, is that nuance and complexity are self-censoring. any position that doesn't losslessly compress into a chant or a rally cry or 240 characters is effectively censored by its own unfitness for the infrastructure of mass propagation. this ultimately favors certain corners of the anti-censorship crowd, for you can be vocally against censorship while knowing full well that it is the most overbroad, reductionist and populist strains of messaging that prevail under such conditions.

wolco 6y ago

The whole thing makes white people subconsciously want to avoid minorities because of the risk of mob punishment if they fail to follow new rules being created for conduct. Same thing happened after me too where many men were afraid to risk power for a real life hookup with the risks involved and have opted out for paided (where legal) risk free transactions. Which in turn has reduced the amount of relationships in general and made everyone lonely.

dash2 6y ago
Interesting idea, but is there any evidence for it?
hindsightbias 6y ago
I can assure you that many older professional white men are conciously avoiding 1:1 interactions with women (moreso those under 40) and minorities in the workplace today. It would be dumb to assume this doesn’t impact managers hiring decisions, conciously or unconciously. Olds can just think of it as culture fit.
- hef19898 6y ago
  If true, it says a lot more about the men than anything else.
  - wolco 6y ago
    Perhaps not men but human nature. Avoiding conflict is not a male trait.
  - the_omegist 6y ago
    Oh : acting in your best interests is "telling", so? Strange : society and "systems" are responsible for everything when it's about certain people but individuality and personal responsibility are the reason when it's other type of people...
hef19898 6y ago
I would love to get some more details, ideally sources, for the last paragraph.

zapita 6y ago

The problem you describe, of the double meaning of the term “racism”, is very real, but only among white people. When communicating with a Black CEO, you can safely assume that they understand the true meaning of the term, from experiencing it every day. And as a result will appreciate the admission and apology. The second mistake to avoid is to not expect a medal, so to speak, for doing the bare minimum. In my experience that is a common pattern: demonstrating a basic understanding of systemic racism, then expecting to be treated as a hero for it - then being disappointed when we’re (understandably) not. Sometimes this can be quite exhausting to someone targeted by racism, because it adds to their mental burden instead of lightening it.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

Somehow you proposed a "double meaning" of racism and missed the actual meaning that's being addressed by our society. Racism isn't about personal prejudice, although it's certainly a participation trophy for them. Racism is not about who is burning crosses, or about who is born into privilege. Racism is a system, a set of rules, rites, privileges and laws that puts 100% of POC at a disadvantage, and 100% of white people at an advantage, regardless of the rest of their social status. The advantage can range from "more likely to be taken seriously in a board meeting" to "more likely to end up dead for no reason at all", with a ridiculous amount of "more likely to end up prison labor" in the middle. Not everyone experiences the system exactly the same way, but even the most privileged POC are likely to point it out, and even the most unprivileged white people are likely to dismiss it as nonexistent. It doesn't take a single prejudiced person to enact it. It's built into the laws and the systems and considered "neutral".

jlawson 6y ago
>Racism is a system, a set of rules, rites, privileges and laws that puts 100% of POC at a disadvantage, and 100% of white people at an advantage, regardless of the rest of their social status. Can you give any specific examples of these rules and laws? I assume you mean rules and laws that are actually written down. I'm interested because while it's easy to find rules and laws that are explicitly 100% to the advantage of non-whites over whites (affirmative action, Gladue in Canada, etc), I've not been able to find any that work the other way around. (Also worth noting "more likely to end up dead for no reason at all" isn't actually true[0]; there's no statistical evidence that cops kill blacks more than whites in comparable situations.) [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evi...
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > Can you give any specific examples of these rules and laws? I assume you mean rules and laws that are actually written down. The 13th Amendment is a pretty big one, worth starting there. > I'm interested because while it's easy to find rules and laws that are explicitly 100% to the advantage of non-whites over whites (affirmative action, Gladue in Canada, etc), I've not been able to find any that work the other way around. If your criteria is that it must be "explicit", you're dismissing the entire concept without considering it. These laws and rules take advantage of context and produce predictable outcomes without needing to put on a white robe and state their intent. > (Also worth noting "more likely to end up dead for no reason at all" isn't actually true[0]; there's no statistical evidence that cops kill blacks more than whites in comparable situations.) > [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evi.. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evi.... I can't get past the paywall, but it is actually true. What I can see above the paywall fold doesn't even represent your claim. And even if it did, "in comparable situations" isn't the criteria. Cops can (hypothetically) behave equally violently in all situations, and still be more likely to kill black people because they police black people and communities more.

hef19898 6y ago

If it is a faux-pas, an immediate excuss is the solution. At least for mature people. There is no explicit racism involved in the CEO example, as long as you treated both persons decently and politely and only misjudged the ranks. The sex offender thing looks a lot like a straw man argument, so. When I think about racists, yes KK Nazis and so on come to mind. But more often I think about the daily, systematic racism white folks show towars people of colour, migrants, other religions. More often than not accompanied by discriminating women and the LGBTQ community.