4 ms·

Yes, when everyone has the snap impulse regarding an "other" group along racial lines, they're flipping on their "racist" neon sign. Then, when they realize th

by Zetice 3y ago

Yes, when everyone has the snap impulse regarding an "other" group along racial lines, they're flipping on their "racist" neon sign. Then, when they realize that's ridiculous and the result of every human's biological affinity for like-appearing fellow humans, they flip their "racist" sign off. You, me, every single healthy human who interacts across racial lines has this impulse. It's normal, you're not an awful person for being human, and nobody is trying to "brand" you anything. Racism is an insidious problem, that is correct, but one that many, many people successfully navigate, and even often ingrain that secondary reaction into an automatic response. When you ask "Do YOU have racist thoughts?" the point is that for many, the natural human instinct towards tribalism is paired with an also-natural human instinct of empathy. Of course this only happens when you recognize the first impulse, but once you admit it's happening, obviously you can get to a place where you're usually able to do better than your baser instincts as part of your natural way of interacting with the world. To deny your tribalistic impulses is to literally deny your existence as a human being. The problem arises when folks seem to want to pretend human impulses don't exist. How is that "nothing"? It's a critical determinant in how you treat the people around you, why would you call that "nothing"?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Within one comment, I showed how you used multiple definitions of racism and racists. Nobody is pretending something doesn't exist. But it's going to be difficult to pinpoint what that "something" is if we get caught up in semantics, which is where this issue--broadly--has hit the rocks in national discourse.
- Zetice 3y ago
  No, you didn't show anything related to the dual definition of racism you claim I've given, and yes you are currently in denial that you have tribal impulses along racial lines.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > you didn't show anything related to the dual definition of racism you claim I've given You didn't respond to the questions in my comment [1]. No matter. Let's take this one. Are "tribal impulses along racial lines" equivalent to believing "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way?" If not, wouldn't discussion be clearer if we used different terms for them? > you are currently in denial that you have tribal impulses along racial lines I never disputed this point? (Not the denial. I dispute that.) But implicit associations that manifest subconsciously part--this is the first time it's coming up directly. I understood that as settled psychology. What I'm challenging is putting those implicit biases under the same word we use to describe those who intentionally and consciously believe their race is superior to others', and act on that belief. The muddling is good for drama. Bad for actually discussing ideas. Exhibit A: this thread. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36885608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36885608
    - Zetice 3y ago
      The point is the impulse and the acceptance of the impulse has the same result, if it isn't acknowledged (glad you accept it's real). It's not dramatic, it's reality, but if you think it's dramatic, imagine someone who doesn't' get a job because of the soft bias might feel... "Oh good, well as long as the HR manager doesn't like my hair it's okay, so long as they don't think they're intellectually superior."
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > point is the impulse and the acceptance of the impulse has the same result You're arguing someone with implicit biases has the same effect on the world as one who proudly says Jim Crow-era lynchings were justified and slavery wasn't bad? Come on. When people say soft impulses are different from intentional discrimination, they aren't saying the implicit biases are okay. They're just saying they're different. The word "racism" currently plays--within this context alone--the simultaneous roles of referring exclusively to the former, exclusively to the latter and to both collectively. Attacking someone who hasn't acknowledged their implicit biases by comparing them to a Southern revanchist isn't only unproductive, it's counterproductive. Disagreement and standstill are almost guaranteed by the structure of the discussion, irrespective of the strength of anyone's arguments.

by Zetice 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Within one comment, I showed how you used multiple definitions of racism and racists. Nobody is pretending something doesn't exist. But it's going to be difficult to pinpoint what that "something" is if we get caught up in semantics, which is where this issue--broadly--has hit the rocks in national discourse.

Zetice 3y ago
No, you didn't show anything related to the dual definition of racism you claim I've given, and yes you are currently in denial that you have tribal impulses along racial lines.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > you didn't show anything related to the dual definition of racism you claim I've given You didn't respond to the questions in my comment [1]. No matter. Let's take this one. Are "tribal impulses along racial lines" equivalent to believing "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way?" If not, wouldn't discussion be clearer if we used different terms for them? > you are currently in denial that you have tribal impulses along racial lines I never disputed this point? (Not the denial. I dispute that.) But implicit associations that manifest subconsciously part--this is the first time it's coming up directly. I understood that as settled psychology. What I'm challenging is putting those implicit biases under the same word we use to describe those who intentionally and consciously believe their race is superior to others', and act on that belief. The muddling is good for drama. Bad for actually discussing ideas. Exhibit A: this thread. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36885608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36885608
  - Zetice 3y ago
    The point is the impulse and the acceptance of the impulse has the same result, if it isn't acknowledged (glad you accept it's real). It's not dramatic, it's reality, but if you think it's dramatic, imagine someone who doesn't' get a job because of the soft bias might feel... "Oh good, well as long as the HR manager doesn't like my hair it's okay, so long as they don't think they're intellectually superior."
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > point is the impulse and the acceptance of the impulse has the same result You're arguing someone with implicit biases has the same effect on the world as one who proudly says Jim Crow-era lynchings were justified and slavery wasn't bad? Come on. When people say soft impulses are different from intentional discrimination, they aren't saying the implicit biases are okay. They're just saying they're different. The word "racism" currently plays--within this context alone--the simultaneous roles of referring exclusively to the former, exclusively to the latter and to both collectively. Attacking someone who hasn't acknowledged their implicit biases by comparing them to a Southern revanchist isn't only unproductive, it's counterproductive. Disagreement and standstill are almost guaranteed by the structure of the discussion, irrespective of the strength of anyone's arguments.