3 ms·

This is bananas. You are chastising people you disagree with for not recognizing the nuance of the situation, and that they ought to recognize others don’t hold

This is bananas. You are chastising people you disagree with for not recognizing the nuance of the situation, and that they ought to recognize others don’t hold the same views as themselves. Fair point. Then you forget you just said that and say the real reason is that everybody that doesn’t agree, for the most part, is racist. This is an insane and hateful point. The sort of belief that if held sincerely can hurt people. Where do you get the confidence or the merge to claim something like this? You’re the one that seems to be comfortable ascribing beliefs to people you don’t even know.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
This is the "not a racist bone" defense, implying that you need privileged insight into someone's intent, motivations, and personal beliefs to call them racist. Which of course we rarely ever have. Another choice is to look at outcomes. Racial exclusion is a predictable result of these policies. It does not need to be the intent. People who consistently support policies with racist outcomes can be called racist. It's a useful shorthand, not a conviction of their soul. Racism doesn't need to be a matter of personal malevolence. Taking self-interested action with known & predictable unjust outcomes is sufficient.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > implying that you need privileged insight into someone's intent, motivations, and personal beliefs to call them racist. Which of course we rarely ever have. Which is why loosening the definition has backfired so spectacularly. Some ascribe racism statistically, to the point that in some circles it's done a full circle to all white people being inherently racist. Most, however, perceive it as a moral judgement. If you loosen the definition to remove intent, it's no longer a moral judgement. > Taking self-interested action with known & predictable unjust outcomes is sufficient But it's not racism by most peoples' definition. It is by the neo-academic revisionist one. But that loosening gave cover for the actual racists to come out and become accepted again. (If everyone who wants a parking lot is called a racist, it takes the bite out of the guy waving a Confederate flag. And if you're called a racist despite knowing you had no racist intent, it makes the other people being called racist more sympathetic.)
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
      You just seem to severely underestimate the damage you're doing to your own cause every time you insinuate someone is racist when they are not.
ProfessorLayton 3y ago
It's worth pointing out that some of the most problematic zoning regulations were indeed enacted due to racism. Huge minimum lot sizes with large setbacks, for example, made housing very expensive — combined with redlining and making it extremely difficult/impossible for PoC to get loans <- Very racist.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

giraffe_lady 3y ago

This is the "not a racist bone" defense, implying that you need privileged insight into someone's intent, motivations, and personal beliefs to call them racist. Which of course we rarely ever have. Another choice is to look at outcomes. Racial exclusion is a predictable result of these policies. It does not need to be the intent. People who consistently support policies with racist outcomes can be called racist. It's a useful shorthand, not a conviction of their soul. Racism doesn't need to be a matter of personal malevolence. Taking self-interested action with known & predictable unjust outcomes is sufficient.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> implying that you need privileged insight into someone's intent, motivations, and personal beliefs to call them racist. Which of course we rarely ever have. Which is why loosening the definition has backfired so spectacularly. Some ascribe racism statistically, to the point that in some circles it's done a full circle to all white people being inherently racist. Most, however, perceive it as a moral judgement. If you loosen the definition to remove intent, it's no longer a moral judgement. > Taking self-interested action with known & predictable unjust outcomes is sufficient But it's not racism by most peoples' definition. It is by the neo-academic revisionist one. But that loosening gave cover for the actual racists to come out and become accepted again. (If everyone who wants a parking lot is called a racist, it takes the bite out of the guy waving a Confederate flag. And if you're called a racist despite knowing you had no racist intent, it makes the other people being called racist more sympathetic.)
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    You just seem to severely underestimate the damage you're doing to your own cause every time you insinuate someone is racist when they are not.

ProfessorLayton 3y ago

It's worth pointing out that some of the most problematic zoning regulations were indeed enacted due to racism. Huge minimum lot sizes with large setbacks, for example, made housing very expensive — combined with redlining and making it extremely difficult/impossible for PoC to get loans <- Very racist.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]