4 ms·

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 al

by 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.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      > 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. I am not arguing anything, I’m observing. If you think racism isn’t just as bad when it’s subconscious or subtle, you’re fooling yourself. Just because someone doesn’t call you a name doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking it or acting on the hate. How could you be so naive? All a racist has to do to satisfy you is to perform their hate in silence? Unreal.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > All a racist has to do to satisfy you is to perform their hate in silence Nope, you've muddled intentional and unintentional impulses again. In any case, I think there is a fundamental disagreement here. Between you and I. And between most of the country and those espousing this definition of racism. I had thought it was semantics, but I guess there are folks who believe slavery and implicit bias are moral equivalents. We disagree, but I appreciated the discussion. Thank you.
        Zetice 3y ago
        I'm not muddling anything, I'm equating them. They are equally as bad, the latter possibly worse. As MLK says in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail": > First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." We may have a fundamental disagreement, but I'll go ahead and stand with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

by 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.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    > 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. I am not arguing anything, I’m observing. If you think racism isn’t just as bad when it’s subconscious or subtle, you’re fooling yourself. Just because someone doesn’t call you a name doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking it or acting on the hate. How could you be so naive? All a racist has to do to satisfy you is to perform their hate in silence? Unreal.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > All a racist has to do to satisfy you is to perform their hate in silence Nope, you've muddled intentional and unintentional impulses again. In any case, I think there is a fundamental disagreement here. Between you and I. And between most of the country and those espousing this definition of racism. I had thought it was semantics, but I guess there are folks who believe slavery and implicit bias are moral equivalents. We disagree, but I appreciated the discussion. Thank you.
      - Zetice 3y ago
        I'm not muddling anything, I'm equating them. They are equally as bad, the latter possibly worse. As MLK says in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail": > First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." We may have a fundamental disagreement, but I'll go ahead and stand with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.