3 ms·

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 r

by 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.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > I'm not muddling anything, I'm equating them Even then, the rhetoric is counterproductive. If I'm arguing jelly beans and Snickers are both candies, it doesn't help to call each of jelly beans, Snickers, and a set of the two by the same name. > I'll go ahead and stand with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. You choose a good quote! Read it again. Nobody here argued for the merits of implicit biases. Just that it is different from what many people consider racism. The Reverend MLK, Jr. agrees. He uses different terms for "the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner" and "white moderates." Because the latter, while--as he argues--harmful, isn't equivalent to the former. In drawing that line, he strengthens his argument, and shows how the moderate stance resembles the extreme one. If we rewrite his words with your rhetoric, it would involve refusing to distinguish, rhetorically or ideologically, between the KKK'er and white moderate. In doing so, King would have not only told a mistruth, he would have also lost his ability to sway the latter.

by Zetice 3y ago

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.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > I'm not muddling anything, I'm equating them Even then, the rhetoric is counterproductive. If I'm arguing jelly beans and Snickers are both candies, it doesn't help to call each of jelly beans, Snickers, and a set of the two by the same name. > I'll go ahead and stand with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. You choose a good quote! Read it again. Nobody here argued for the merits of implicit biases. Just that it is different from what many people consider racism. The Reverend MLK, Jr. agrees. He uses different terms for "the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner" and "white moderates." Because the latter, while--as he argues--harmful, isn't equivalent to the former. In drawing that line, he strengthens his argument, and shows how the moderate stance resembles the extreme one. If we rewrite his words with your rhetoric, it would involve refusing to distinguish, rhetorically or ideologically, between the KKK'er and white moderate. In doing so, King would have not only told a mistruth, he would have also lost his ability to sway the latter.