6 ms·

You have a point, but it may be a bit obtuse to call racist accusations themselves racist. Those call outs may or may not be correct, ignorant, or even a calcul

You have a point, but it may be a bit obtuse to call racist accusations themselves racist. Those call outs may or may not be correct, ignorant, or even a calculated dirty way to discredit someone, but how are they themselves racist?

giantg2 5y ago
Pretty much why I worded it the way I did - to bring attention to they potential hypocrisy or lack of standards around calling people racist based on a concern (traffic, or claiming racism) that does not display racism. So yeah, my calling the accusation racist is only as founded as the author's, which is essentially based on stereotypes and supposition. In my case, that supposition is that the person making the accusation must be relying on the race of the person raising the traffic issues in calling them racist.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  You don't need a view into someone's soul to call them a racist. Racism in this context isn't necessarily about individual interpersonal malice. If a development would greatly help members of a historically oppressed group and somewhat hinder members of a historically powerful group, and you knowingly argue against the development on those grounds, you're supporting a policy that has unjust racial consequences. "A racist" is a useful shorthand for a person taking those actions in that context. It's not a permanent immutable judgement about the inner workings of their mind or motivations. Just an assessment of some of their actions.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "If a development would greatly help members of a historically oppressed group and somewhat hinder members of a historically powerful group, and you knowingly argue against the development on those grounds, you're supporting a policy that has unjust racial consequences." Are they arguing against it on those grounds? The tweets don't go any further than calling people racists that bring up traffic or environmental issues.
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      Look I'm trying to find a charitable way to read this, really. But why is your project here establishing a narrow definition of racism with a high burden of proof? Systems and policies that have disparate racial impacts are racist. Resisting changes to those policies that would narrow the impacts is somewhere on the wack-to-definitely-racist continuum, yes depending a lot on the specific details of the situation. What matters here is the impact, not the intention. If someone is supporting a policy with a racist result, or resisting changes to them, I'm gonna call them racist too. If they don't like that assessment they can ignore it or stop those actions.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "But why is your project here establishing a narrow definition of racism with a high burden of proof?" I don't believe my statement is looking for a narrow definition, just a valid one. I'd like some level of proof. It doesn't have to be high. The real problem here is the insinuation that people who bring up potentially valid issues related to a low income housing project are racist. Their concern could be a valid one with no racial basis. "What matters here is the impact, not the intention." Please, do show me a definition that shows intent is not a component. The dictionaries I looked at do not agree with you. Even then, would it be racist for you to assume a specific race is disproportionately affected by low income housing? If a race is affected disproportionately by lack of housing, are you inviting any of the affected people to share your home? Does that make you racist? "Systems and policies that have disparate racial impacts are racist." No, they have "disparate racial impacts". By your definition, what system isn't racist? Every system has some disparity of racial impact, even if it is meritorious (take the recent posts on here about Harvard quotas and Asians). I firmly believe that without intent, a system is not racist, but could have racial disparities - there is a difference. The definition you're trying to push seems to be more worthy of the insults you're pushing at me. You mention a racist policy. What policy is that? As there is not one mentioned in the context of sentence mentioning racism.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > If a development would greatly help members of a historically oppressed group and somewhat hinder members of a historically powerful group, and you knowingly argue against the development on those grounds, you're supporting a policy that has unjust racial consequences. That's not racist, though. I mean, it can be, but that's just caring about your own property value more than caring about righting unjust racial consequences. It's still selfish and kinda shitty, but racist? C'mon... I feel like the term is getting watered down by everyone who likes to use it to shut down discussion of something they don't like. > "A racist" is a useful shorthand for a person taking those actions in that context. No, that's not what "racist" means.
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      > just caring about your own property value more than caring about righting unjust racial consequences lol nah I feel pretty good calling that racism sorry
  - lr4444lr 5y ago
    If a development would greatly help members of a historically oppressed group and somewhat hinder members of a historically powerful group There are a lot implicit assumptions in here of outcomes you cannot predict, and which I'm frankly a little dubious you can precisely define and measure in a falsifiable way.

giantg2 5y ago

Pretty much why I worded it the way I did - to bring attention to they potential hypocrisy or lack of standards around calling people racist based on a concern (traffic, or claiming racism) that does not display racism. So yeah, my calling the accusation racist is only as founded as the author's, which is essentially based on stereotypes and supposition. In my case, that supposition is that the person making the accusation must be relying on the race of the person raising the traffic issues in calling them racist.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
You don't need a view into someone's soul to call them a racist. Racism in this context isn't necessarily about individual interpersonal malice. If a development would greatly help members of a historically oppressed group and somewhat hinder members of a historically powerful group, and you knowingly argue against the development on those grounds, you're supporting a policy that has unjust racial consequences. "A racist" is a useful shorthand for a person taking those actions in that context. It's not a permanent immutable judgement about the inner workings of their mind or motivations. Just an assessment of some of their actions.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "If a development would greatly help members of a historically oppressed group and somewhat hinder members of a historically powerful group, and you knowingly argue against the development on those grounds, you're supporting a policy that has unjust racial consequences." Are they arguing against it on those grounds? The tweets don't go any further than calling people racists that bring up traffic or environmental issues.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    Look I'm trying to find a charitable way to read this, really. But why is your project here establishing a narrow definition of racism with a high burden of proof? Systems and policies that have disparate racial impacts are racist. Resisting changes to those policies that would narrow the impacts is somewhere on the wack-to-definitely-racist continuum, yes depending a lot on the specific details of the situation. What matters here is the impact, not the intention. If someone is supporting a policy with a racist result, or resisting changes to them, I'm gonna call them racist too. If they don't like that assessment they can ignore it or stop those actions.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "But why is your project here establishing a narrow definition of racism with a high burden of proof?" I don't believe my statement is looking for a narrow definition, just a valid one. I'd like some level of proof. It doesn't have to be high. The real problem here is the insinuation that people who bring up potentially valid issues related to a low income housing project are racist. Their concern could be a valid one with no racial basis. "What matters here is the impact, not the intention." Please, do show me a definition that shows intent is not a component. The dictionaries I looked at do not agree with you. Even then, would it be racist for you to assume a specific race is disproportionately affected by low income housing? If a race is affected disproportionately by lack of housing, are you inviting any of the affected people to share your home? Does that make you racist? "Systems and policies that have disparate racial impacts are racist." No, they have "disparate racial impacts". By your definition, what system isn't racist? Every system has some disparity of racial impact, even if it is meritorious (take the recent posts on here about Harvard quotas and Asians). I firmly believe that without intent, a system is not racist, but could have racial disparities - there is a difference. The definition you're trying to push seems to be more worthy of the insults you're pushing at me. You mention a racist policy. What policy is that? As there is not one mentioned in the context of sentence mentioning racism.
- kelnos 5y ago
  > If a development would greatly help members of a historically oppressed group and somewhat hinder members of a historically powerful group, and you knowingly argue against the development on those grounds, you're supporting a policy that has unjust racial consequences. That's not racist, though. I mean, it can be, but that's just caring about your own property value more than caring about righting unjust racial consequences. It's still selfish and kinda shitty, but racist? C'mon... I feel like the term is getting watered down by everyone who likes to use it to shut down discussion of something they don't like. > "A racist" is a useful shorthand for a person taking those actions in that context. No, that's not what "racist" means.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    > just caring about your own property value more than caring about righting unjust racial consequences lol nah I feel pretty good calling that racism sorry
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  If a development would greatly help members of a historically oppressed group and somewhat hinder members of a historically powerful group There are a lot implicit assumptions in here of outcomes you cannot predict, and which I'm frankly a little dubious you can precisely define and measure in a falsifiable way.