11 ms·

The post points to a true thing, Orthodox Privilege definitely exists and we see examples of it quite often. However, to some extent it exists within bubbles.

• pjc50 6y ago
  Dogwhistles work because they are not obviously false. The statement is not racist in its text, but in its subtext and context. The statement is only raised for the purpose of preventing action from being taken or change being made, in regard to investigation into and prevention of unnecessary deaths of black people. The statement that lots of white people are killed by US police is similarly both true and a distraction. It's a bit like turning up to a 9/11 memorial and saying "all plane crashes matter". Or somebody responding to a bug report by closing it WONTFIX with "all bugs matter". (There's a separate debate as to whether "X lives matter" should be considered a descriptive or normative statement!) (I should probably stop refreshing this and watching the wild upvote/downvote swing too)
  • H8crilA 6y ago
    I believe you're missing the point.
    • jacobush 6y ago
      I wonder how. I often do not agree with pjc50 but I do agree in this case. I miss something too and don't want to miss it.
    • pjc50 6y ago
      .. would you like to explain then?
      • tomp 6y ago
        Au contraire, Saying "Black Lives Matter" is a distraction. The actual problem is police violence and overreach - not just police killings, but even things like swatting, civil forfeiture, police buying surplus army gear, drug war, etc. etc. - and focusing attention on just one tiny issue, then proposing a braindead solution ("defund the police" - do you really want to live in a society with no police? like e.g. CHAZ?) is the worst way to solve the problem.
      • dgb23 6y ago
        OP was comparing the two statements in terms of 'orthodox privilege'. Meaning they were not claiming that they both have the same ethical standards or logical consistency. But rather that 'orthodox privilege' can be extrapolated into 'bubbles' or sub-cultures. The 'orthodox privilege' in PGs article is also mostly descriptive rather than normative. You were arguing based on ethics and logic. I agree with your conclusion and I sympathize with your reaction. But it seems you missed what OP was going for: describing what people might think/say/do and why that might be rather than what they _should_ do.
      • shawnz 6y ago
        While it is undeniably a racist dogwhistle, there are still some communities where that is not the safe/"orthodox" opinion
        • pjc50 6y ago
          .. such as?
          • deleted 6y ago
            [deleted]
          • arcticfox 6y ago
            I think the orthodoxy in the dominant, pro-Trump faction of the GOP would say "All Lives Matter" is not racist or a dogwhistle. (I think there are few that would openly consider themselves racist, thus making their orthodox opinion on the phrase: 'we are not being racist'. Even if I personally disagree with that self-classification.)
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • msandford 6y ago
    > The statement is only raised for the purpose of preventing action from being taken or change being made, in regard to investigation into and prevention of unnecessary deaths of black people. The statement that lots of white people are killed by US police is similarly both true and a distraction. I'd respectfully disagree on this issue. I think it's possible to be worried about police abuse of force from the context of being a person who is a mere citizen and thus has a lot less rights than the police. No ethnic group has a truly zero chance of dying at the police's hand. Do white people have it better? Yes absolutely. But it's not as though the police only use excessive force against black people. I think you're missing the possibility that there are conservatives who want police use of force reform too but want to do so in a color/ethnicity agnostic way. The idea that non-black people say 'All lives matter' only to prevent change is probably not correct. And the reactions like the one I quoted above only serve to divide folks rather than find common ground. It's pretty tragic.
    • pjc50 6y ago
      > The idea that non-black people say 'All lives matter' only to prevent change is probably not correct Isn't it? Which genuine pre-existing police reform campaigns are using that phrase? Do you have any examples? > And the reactions like the one I quoted above only serve to divide folks rather than find common ground People are told that "all lives matter", in that specific phrasing, is divisive, and keep using it. If you say "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights", you're quoting from the universal declaration of human rights and uncontrovesial (in the west!) > I think you're missing the possibility that there are conservatives who want police use of force reform too but want to do so in a color/ethnicity agnostic way Are there? Who? More importantly, how? And I don't think any of the specific BLM proposals are actually race-specific, are they?
      • notmyfriend 6y ago
        Make a distinction between the BLM organisation and the BLM movement. The BLM organisation is an openly marxist group who are riding the coat-tail of the movement to "overthrow" western civilisation. And if you don't think so go read their statement of purpose on their website and tell yourself that is just "reforming the police". https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
  • throw_m239339 6y ago
    The problem is when the general population assumes that only the far right uses racist dogwhistles. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jun/25/abolish-whiteness-academic-calls-for-cambridge-support https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jun/25/abolish-wh... > She tweeted on Tuesday: “White lives don’t matter. As white lives” and “Abolish whiteness”, I'm sorry but no amount of "academic context" makes these sentences any less racist. > It's a bit like turning up to a 9/11 memorial and saying "all plane crashes matter". Or somebody responding to a bug report by closing it WONTFIX with "all bugs matter". No it isn't, your argument is fallacious, no organization came with a "9/11 plane crash matters" slogan at first place. "black lives matter" is a bad slogan because it both doesn't mean what it says and is divisive by nature. "black lives matter" is black people telling white people that "black lives matter too". It's incredibly patronizing. The great majority of white people do understand that black lives do matter, as much as white lives and that police brutality does affect all races. If you design a slogan in such a way that it is divisive by nature, then disallow anybody else from fighting for their own cause or even broader causes, then you are not seeking a solution involving everybody, but just more racial strife, as you are claiming the exclusivity on victimhood. Nobody can come here telling me that no white people has ever been beaten or killed by the police abusing their power.
    • pjc50 6y ago
      > The great majority of white people do understand that black lives do matter, as much as white lives and that police brutality does affect all races. If that were true, why has it been happening for so many decades? > If you design a slogan in such a way that it is divisive by nature Fairly sure MLK had something to say about this, and that it was impossible to "not be divisive" when talking about race.
      • throw_m239339 6y ago
        > If that were true, why has it been happening for so many decades? You mean white people also getting killed by the police? Good question. > Fairly sure MLK had something to say about this, and that it was impossible to "not be divisive" when talking about race. The civil right act didn't grant special rights to minorities, it just made both segregation and racial discrimination illegal. This is a non divisive way to solve race issues. Divisive slogans claiming the monopoly on victimhood solve nothing.
  • malandrew 6y ago
    Even current popular use of the term "dogwhistle" has become a dogwhistle in and of itself. In current contemporary use, members of the blue tribe use it to communicate to other members of the blue tribe that they believe they have identified a member of the red tribe and want other members of the blue tribe to join them in the tar-and-feathering of the suspected red tribe member. Both the blue tribe and the red tribe are mirror images of one another in far more ways than members of either are willing (capable?) of acknowledging.
  • adolph 6y ago
    What evidence is there that it is a "racist dog whistle?" What "action" has the phrase prevented from being taken? Is it "racist" in the DiAngelo definition, a reflection of white people's innate racism and thus like anything a white person might say or do outside of the anti-racist activity of contemplating one's own racism? Is it a "dog whistle" because it summons racists like a bat signal, "Hey white supremacists, time to do some racism!" How is it that so many people who can hear a particular phrase immediately denounce it as a "racist dog whistle?" Is the denouncement part of systemic racism whereby white people can pretend to be allies and yet still demonstrate their white supremacy bonafides because they can hear the signal?
  • curiousgeorgio 6y ago
    > The statement is only raised for the purpose of preventing action from being taken or change being made, in regard to investigation into and prevention of unnecessary deaths of black people. Have you considered the possibility that a lot of people agree that action should be taken, and that statistically-speaking, that positive action will reduce unnecessary deaths for all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity? If a software bug is reported to affect a certain subset of users more often than others, but upon investigation, it turns out the bug is a duplicate of another more fundamental bug that affects all users relatively equally, are we preventing action (or discrediting that subset of users who reported the bug) by marking it as a duplicate and giving priority to the fundamental issue so as to fix it for everyone? Just as Black Lives Matter supporters often claim that the phrase is misunderstood by those who question it, All Lives Matter is misunderstood by many who think it takes something away from the black community. It's not a denial of anything, but rather a recognition that the problems actually do statistically affect everyone, and singling out one race (when all are affected) actually does more harm than good when it comes to ending racism.
    • joshuamorton 6y ago
      That would be believeable if all lives matter didn't get thrown around by the same people who say blue lives matter and who systematically refuse to take action on police violence that affects everyone. You don't counter protest a movement you agree with because you dislike it's semantics. You use semantics as an excuse to ignore a movement that ultimately makes you uncomfortable. MLKs letter from a Birmingham jail being ever relevant.
      • curiousgeorgio 6y ago
        Perhaps you could re-read the article this discussion is about. You're misrepresenting (and projecting other ideas onto) a viewpoint that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand. Semantics do matter, especially when specifics are used to highlight division, and that division is used to justify more violence (such as murders committed by the very people who are protesting).
• dsr_ 6y ago
  It's both obviously true AND a racist dog whistle. Stripped of context, it is obviously true, and utterly harmless. Placed in the context of BLM, it denies that anything unfair is happening to people because of their skin color.
  • djaque 6y ago
    > Stripped of context, it is obviously true, and utterly harmless. You can't strip phrases like that of context. "All lives matter" isn't just a statement, it is a direct response to black lives matter (too). Anybody who's been half paying attention to the news for the past few years understands that and is not making an utterly harmless assertion.
    • mantap 6y ago
      Say you are a Mongolian tourist and you arrive in America and people are getting upset about "all lives matter", you would think that it is an utterly bizarre thing to get upset about. In fact, the angry reaction to "all lives matter" precisely is what encourages its use. Because if you take as premise, that "all lives matter" is true then it becomes easy to cast anybody who gets angry about a true statement as unreasonable. You might think that there are no Mongolian tourists in America, especially right now, but you might be surprised how little many people pay attention to current events. [Disclaimer for the internet mob, I have never and would never use the phrase.]
  • golergka 6y ago
    Problem arises when you assume that everybody exists in the same context.
  • faitswulff 6y ago
    > Placed in the context of BLM 80 to 90% of the times I’ve seen this phrase, it’s been used in response to Black Lives Matter. As opposed to being used in the positive for, say, universal healthcare, food assistance programs, and initiatives to house the homeless.
    • 6y ago
• vsareto 6y ago
  There's a time and follower threshold where it goes from being a bubble to a cultural norm. IMO that threshold has been greatly lowered by all of social media allowing for a relatively quick (compared to hundreds of years of human communication) amassing of followers to form a bubble. In this way, you can mint your own orthodoxy. Having a large number of people following some idea is a powerful force in recruiting others. And although the threshold has gone down for new bubbles, it has also gone down for when they get removed. It's become normal to churn through a bunch of different bubbles and seeing which one sticks around long enough.
• bad_user 6y ago
  You're right, except that _the majority_ tends to be one of the bubbles ;-) It's why I worry about the left promoting and abusing cancel/outrage culture. Ironically, if you want to protect minorities, then liberal values need to be protected because it is liberal values that protect minorities against the _tyranny of the majority_. As an example, on the one hand, as a European, I agree with banning hate speech if it is well defined, and I think the western European countries have a good track record in not abusing censorship. On the other hand, censorship can easily be extended to "fake news", or it could be interpreted that a critique of religion is hate speech, the same religion that promotes hate speech in the Bible, with organizations behind it that support conservative values, actively pushing for legislation against minorities. Why do minorities think that if censorship starts to be more common, that it will be in their / our favor, given the entire history of the human race? It's a mystery to me. And I understand the current phenomenon in the US. The justice system in the US is dysfunctional because systemic racism exists, and it's unjust. So people are taking matters into their own hands. With a dysfunctional justice system, the outcome is predictable. However, that outcome will not be positive. Sorry but I don't believe in mobs with pitchforks; the instances in history where popular revolts worked to enact positive change are rare and far between.