4 ms·
Yes, antiracism must be measured by its effects. Google's campaign had antiracist intentions, and racist effects. That doesn't mean we should all give up on ef
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Yes, antiracism must be measured by its effects. Google's campaign had antiracist intentions, and racist effects.
That doesn't mean we should all give up on effective antiracism, though. This tactic/campaign/etc. was not antiracist. Others can be. It's not clear at all why this should be taken to mean that "the more we talk about race...the worse the racial tensions and competition will become." The conversation around race in the US has been ongoing for decades, and there are many objective metrics whereby things have not become worse.
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoI could have been clearer but I meant to stress "in zero-sum contexts". Not all race discussion is necessarily bad/harmful in outcomes. However it sure does appear to me that in the last five or ten years, the manner of the conversation has degraded so much that very very little progress is made per unit of "increasing tensions". That is entirely subjective, but it is how it appears to me.
- throwaway3699 6y agoRacism must absolutely be measured by intention, not effects. The very definition of racism is somebody actively discriminating against another race. Any other definition just ends up discussing Marxist ideas like "systems of oppression" which go nowhere and actively harm the conversation.
- GavinMcG 6y agoNo, you'd like to define racism narrowly. Not that I can get in your head, but doing so sure makes it easier to imagine ourselves as not complicit. But evil is all too often banal, and passive.
- throwaway3699 6y agoI'm not complicit. I've never been in a position of authority over hiring or loans, etc... nor have I ever treated anybody differently for their skin colour. Racism is about intent and your definition expands it well beyond what figures like MLK understood it to be. To do anything else is evil.
- GavinMcG 6y agoMLK named "the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice" as "the great stumbling block in [the] stride toward justice." I'm not expanding a thing.
- throwaway3699 6y agoThat's still incorrect. I'm happy for there to be disruptions in order to get justice. What I don't agree with is that I'm somehow complicit for society's problems be virtue of being born into it. Or would you be prepared to charge your children with that burden too?
- GavinMcG 6y agoIf they are born into society, grow up, look around, and do nothing? Yes. It isn't enough to not actively hate other people.
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoI refuse to be told I'm complicit in evil without a clear and definite example.
- GavinMcG 6y agoHere's one guess, off the top of my head: what actions have you taken to reduce the likelihood that police in your community will kill a black person unnecessarily? Cause as much as I care about that issue, I never reached out to leaders in my community to encourage hiring more police and reducing overtime, for example. I didn't join any protest. I have been completely passive, standing by, waiting for someone else to solve the problem.
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoI could save a lot more lives per dollar/hour by working on antimalarial treatments in Africa. There's countless things we're not doing so save lives. That does not mean we're relentlessly evil. If you aren't working to save every life, you're basically Godwin's Law.
- GavinMcG 6y agoYou're strawmanning. I didn't call anyone relentlessly evil—the whole point is that complicity is woven into our daily lives in a way that's banal and easily ignored. You could direct more resources this way or that. Do you? What about your time? Do you invite others in your life to do so as well?