3 ms·

I would like to point out that there is a plethora of literature and research which defines and studies "systemic racism", not to mention many people who have s

I would like to point out that there is a plethora of literature and research which defines and studies "systemic racism", not to mention many people who have spent their entire careers on the topic, and have done so while being "honest, precise, and consistent." The way you have worded your comment implies that those who use the term are doing so to weasle out of honest debate, and I think this is a very uncharitable characterization. Furthermore, the dialogue you've used to exemplify the debate does not seem to honestly reflect what any reasonable expert would actually say. At best, it's what a person might say if they were poorly informed and had an incomplete understanding of systemic racism. Really, this makes me question whether you are being honest with yourself about your own understanding of systemic racism, and the body of work upon which we draw when discussing the topic. I feel that if you had a more accurate understanding, your response to the parent comment would be quite different in its priorities, so I would highly recommend you reflect on this, and perhaps read a bit more deeply on the subject.

throwaway894345 6y ago
You're conflating two distinct claims: * "Everyone who uses this term is arguing in bad faith" * "Many people who use this term are using it in bad faith" My claim was the former. No doubt many people use it in a precise sense, take care to define it well, and don't move semantic goalposts. But many do, and this is (in my opinion) a big reason why the debate around the term is so low-quality. > Really, this makes me question whether you are being honest with yourself about your own understanding of systemic racism, and the body of work upon which we draw when discussing the topic. How can I be "dishonest with myself about my understanding of 'systemic racism'" when I don't know what the claimant means by 'systemic racism'? What about asking someone to define their terms connotes disearnesty?
- rirarobo 6y ago
  I feel like you've misunderstood my point. It was not my intention to conflate those two claims, I assumed when reading your comment that you are referring to some subset of people, not all people. As I mentioned, the type of interaction you described sounded less like someone arguing in bad faith, and more like someone who is under-informed. Yes, many people are in fact under-informed on this topic, especially since many are learning about it for the first time as a result of recent events. Accordingly, I would expect that there are many more people fitting this description, than there are people who argue in bad faith. This on its own would be a reasonable explanation for experiencing low quality discussions. So, you could have originally replied with something along the lines of, "to be fair, many people have only just learned of systemic racism, and as a result, casual discussions on the topic are often low quality and just muddy any debate." But why focus on these low quality discussions in the first place? Don't they exist for nearly any topic? Are they really the highest priority when trying to have a constructive discussion? This was the main point of my comment, to point out that your reply focused on the existence of low quality discussions, and in turn does more to perpetuate the idea that "systemic racism" is not well defined nor well founded in general, than it does to contribute to better understanding. Rapind's reply also points this out, that very low quality arguments are similar to strawman arguments, and even if it wasn't your intention, solely focusing on them can actually hinder the discussion. If you acknowledge that better definitions of "systemic racism" exist, but you omit them and focus on poor definitions instead, you are contributing to the low quality of the debate yourself. In regards to being honest with oneself, I mean being aware of your own understanding and it's limitations. How would you describe the depth of your understanding on this topic? Do you have resources you can share with others so they can better understand what you mean when you discuss systemic racism? Perhaps you can recommend a favorite book or specific author that you think covers the topic comprehensively and in good faith? Do you feel like you know what an expert means when they're using the term, as well as the common misconceptions faced by non-experts? Are you asking yourself these questions before you ask them of others?
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Sorry, I think I made things less clear by accidentally typing "former" instead of "latter". Anyway, my specific claim is that "systemic" is overloaded and abstract and there are bad faith actors exacerbating the problem, and it is driving a lot of confusion and low quality discourse. It's important to address because having a productive, honest, accountable public debate is paramount to democracy, social progress, and the welfare of over 300 million Americans and those who are affected by America. Anyway, this conversation is already sufficiently off-topic; hopefully it's clear enough where I stand even if you don't agree. In whatever case, it's time I duck out.
- fuzxi 6y ago
  >My claim was the former. I think you meant 'the latter'. Former is the first, latter is the last.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Oof, yeah. I’ve done that twice this afternoon.
rapind 6y ago
There are those who understand the nuance in discussions like these that use meaningful and succinct terms like systematic to represent a known thing. Once a term is in the mainstream though, others will adopt a term without really understanding or often having any desire to understand what they're saying. It's like a strawman that's been brought to life for opposition to a belief it had previously been used in. The term may then lose meaning once everyone on twitter starts debating it under it's new flawed definition. Basically a way to dismiss something uncomfortable by subverting it's meaning. A good example would be "Social Just Warrior" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior. What GP is doing is feeding the strawman (I doubt intentionally) which may have the effect of reducing real evidence and support into subjective nonsense in the mainstream context. The worst part is that it sort of feeds itself. GP might very well be correct in that the term is being misused blatantly in some contexts. 4d chess.
- rirarobo 6y ago
  Thank you for this comment, and for describing this dynamic so clearly. As you said, I doubt it was intentional, but GP's comment stuck out to me because it was in response to a rather innocuous statement of disbelief. I would liken it to witnessing the following exchange: > A newly released climate change report from ExxonMobil has sparked controversy ... >> It boggles my mind that there’s any debate about whether there's climate change when we literally have studies from fossil fuel companies detailing the evidence and predicting its future impact. >>> In fairness, "change" is not well defined, and is routinely misused. For example, if we're talking about the recent storms in the midwest, and I invoke "climate change" to imply that these storms were directly linked to rising global temperatures and will lead to the collapse of the North American food supply, you could point out that the storms are still consistent with local weather phenomena observed in the area's recent history, at which point I would retreat to ... >>> In my experience, people who are willing to be honest, precise, and consistent in their terminology tend to have more reasonable and productive debates about weather events. They can often agree on many things with the people who are supposed to be their enemies and the disagreements are more understandable. Notably, most Americans probably agree that these storms were damaging to farmers in the midwest. >>> EDIT: People are fixating on the example and assuming that the reported rate of destruction to the corn crop in Iowa underrepresents the rates in neighboring areas, and ... , but when taking into account reduced demand from China and ... , there's clearly no threat of a food supply collapse. So while it's fair to argue that agricultural scientists are failing to account for something, we're not talking about ignorant people making stupid extrapolations. If we're going to go off-topic, then let's at least make it a productive, enlightening digression. How do you point this out effectively, so that people can realize that they're fixated on arguing against a strawman of their own creation, and so they don't just double down?

throwaway894345 6y ago

You're conflating two distinct claims: * "Everyone who uses this term is arguing in bad faith" * "Many people who use this term are using it in bad faith" My claim was the former. No doubt many people use it in a precise sense, take care to define it well, and don't move semantic goalposts. But many do, and this is (in my opinion) a big reason why the debate around the term is so low-quality. > Really, this makes me question whether you are being honest with yourself about your own understanding of systemic racism, and the body of work upon which we draw when discussing the topic. How can I be "dishonest with myself about my understanding of 'systemic racism'" when I don't know what the claimant means by 'systemic racism'? What about asking someone to define their terms connotes disearnesty?

rirarobo 6y ago
I feel like you've misunderstood my point. It was not my intention to conflate those two claims, I assumed when reading your comment that you are referring to some subset of people, not all people. As I mentioned, the type of interaction you described sounded less like someone arguing in bad faith, and more like someone who is under-informed. Yes, many people are in fact under-informed on this topic, especially since many are learning about it for the first time as a result of recent events. Accordingly, I would expect that there are many more people fitting this description, than there are people who argue in bad faith. This on its own would be a reasonable explanation for experiencing low quality discussions. So, you could have originally replied with something along the lines of, "to be fair, many people have only just learned of systemic racism, and as a result, casual discussions on the topic are often low quality and just muddy any debate." But why focus on these low quality discussions in the first place? Don't they exist for nearly any topic? Are they really the highest priority when trying to have a constructive discussion? This was the main point of my comment, to point out that your reply focused on the existence of low quality discussions, and in turn does more to perpetuate the idea that "systemic racism" is not well defined nor well founded in general, than it does to contribute to better understanding. Rapind's reply also points this out, that very low quality arguments are similar to strawman arguments, and even if it wasn't your intention, solely focusing on them can actually hinder the discussion. If you acknowledge that better definitions of "systemic racism" exist, but you omit them and focus on poor definitions instead, you are contributing to the low quality of the debate yourself. In regards to being honest with oneself, I mean being aware of your own understanding and it's limitations. How would you describe the depth of your understanding on this topic? Do you have resources you can share with others so they can better understand what you mean when you discuss systemic racism? Perhaps you can recommend a favorite book or specific author that you think covers the topic comprehensively and in good faith? Do you feel like you know what an expert means when they're using the term, as well as the common misconceptions faced by non-experts? Are you asking yourself these questions before you ask them of others?
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Sorry, I think I made things less clear by accidentally typing "former" instead of "latter". Anyway, my specific claim is that "systemic" is overloaded and abstract and there are bad faith actors exacerbating the problem, and it is driving a lot of confusion and low quality discourse. It's important to address because having a productive, honest, accountable public debate is paramount to democracy, social progress, and the welfare of over 300 million Americans and those who are affected by America. Anyway, this conversation is already sufficiently off-topic; hopefully it's clear enough where I stand even if you don't agree. In whatever case, it's time I duck out.
fuzxi 6y ago
>My claim was the former. I think you meant 'the latter'. Former is the first, latter is the last.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Oof, yeah. I’ve done that twice this afternoon.

rapind 6y ago

There are those who understand the nuance in discussions like these that use meaningful and succinct terms like systematic to represent a known thing. Once a term is in the mainstream though, others will adopt a term without really understanding or often having any desire to understand what they're saying. It's like a strawman that's been brought to life for opposition to a belief it had previously been used in. The term may then lose meaning once everyone on twitter starts debating it under it's new flawed definition. Basically a way to dismiss something uncomfortable by subverting it's meaning. A good example would be "Social Just Warrior" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior. What GP is doing is feeding the strawman (I doubt intentionally) which may have the effect of reducing real evidence and support into subjective nonsense in the mainstream context. The worst part is that it sort of feeds itself. GP might very well be correct in that the term is being misused blatantly in some contexts. 4d chess.

rirarobo 6y ago
Thank you for this comment, and for describing this dynamic so clearly. As you said, I doubt it was intentional, but GP's comment stuck out to me because it was in response to a rather innocuous statement of disbelief. I would liken it to witnessing the following exchange: > A newly released climate change report from ExxonMobil has sparked controversy ... >> It boggles my mind that there’s any debate about whether there's climate change when we literally have studies from fossil fuel companies detailing the evidence and predicting its future impact. >>> In fairness, "change" is not well defined, and is routinely misused. For example, if we're talking about the recent storms in the midwest, and I invoke "climate change" to imply that these storms were directly linked to rising global temperatures and will lead to the collapse of the North American food supply, you could point out that the storms are still consistent with local weather phenomena observed in the area's recent history, at which point I would retreat to ... >>> In my experience, people who are willing to be honest, precise, and consistent in their terminology tend to have more reasonable and productive debates about weather events. They can often agree on many things with the people who are supposed to be their enemies and the disagreements are more understandable. Notably, most Americans probably agree that these storms were damaging to farmers in the midwest. >>> EDIT: People are fixating on the example and assuming that the reported rate of destruction to the corn crop in Iowa underrepresents the rates in neighboring areas, and ... , but when taking into account reduced demand from China and ... , there's clearly no threat of a food supply collapse. So while it's fair to argue that agricultural scientists are failing to account for something, we're not talking about ignorant people making stupid extrapolations. If we're going to go off-topic, then let's at least make it a productive, enlightening digression. How do you point this out effectively, so that people can realize that they're fixated on arguing against a strawman of their own creation, and so they don't just double down?