3 ms·

The comment you're replying to is obviously being sarcastic and trying to "stir the pot." But I will respond to you seriously. Most Americans who use the word

by a4isms 4y ago

The comment you're replying to is obviously being sarcastic and trying to "stir the pot." But I will respond to you seriously. Most Americans who use the word "racist" mean "intentionally and adversarially racist," e.g. The three boys who called me a "spook" and assaulted me on a Toronto subway platform in the early 1970s. Apple and their feature is manifestly not that kind of racist, and I think it's misleading to use the word racist by itself as an adjective, because this is the connotation most people associate with the word." (I personally only associate that connotation with the noun "racist," as in "Hitler was a racist.") There is also a systemic kind of racism, where no one person participating in a system is a racist, but the overall outcome of the system's behaviour is to be discriminatory in an unjust manner against people of a particular race. I think that's something you acknowledge by saying that the outcome of a bunch of people making what they felt were reasonable choices in the system ended up making something with an "unfortunate bias." And from what I've read, Apple realize that sometimes a product needs to evolve to be more inclusive and takes steps to address that.

InCityDreams 4y ago
[flagged]
amf12 4y ago
That's a fair point. I agree that there could be systemic racism, which is exactly what it is in this case. When most people say "racist" they don't mean "bias" or "systemic racism", but the overt kind. I think there should be a difference in the perception of the two kinds, even though we should improve in both cases. I'll also add that when people responsible don't take any steps to correct systemic racism, it should be considered the overt kind.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > when people responsible don't take any steps to correct systemic racism, it should be considered the overt kind The problem with the state of our debate is people smeared a word used for overt, intentional racism across all manner of unintentional behaviour. That not only reasonably infuriated folks. It also gave cover for the original kind of racism to duck under. (A similar thing has happened to the term violence.)

by a4isms 4y ago

InCityDreams 4y ago

[flagged]

amf12 4y ago

That's a fair point. I agree that there could be systemic racism, which is exactly what it is in this case. When most people say "racist" they don't mean "bias" or "systemic racism", but the overt kind. I think there should be a difference in the perception of the two kinds, even though we should improve in both cases. I'll also add that when people responsible don't take any steps to correct systemic racism, it should be considered the overt kind.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> when people responsible don't take any steps to correct systemic racism, it should be considered the overt kind The problem with the state of our debate is people smeared a word used for overt, intentional racism across all manner of unintentional behaviour. That not only reasonably infuriated folks. It also gave cover for the original kind of racism to duck under. (A similar thing has happened to the term violence.)