3 ms·

I think I see the confusion. We're saying that "racist" is a useful description of a type of human thought / behaviour. You seem to think it's a demonising invo

I think I see the confusion. We're saying that "racist" is a useful description of a type of human thought / behaviour. You seem to think it's a demonising invocation of Godwin's Law that's incompatible with empathy. One level more meta, though: if, as a society, we treat racist behaviour as inexcusable, that makes it less likely to occur. Treating racists as "reasonable, but mistaken" is actually in the neo-Nazi playbook. (I understand the impulse, though: I used to do it myself, until I realised that I was making up historical "facts" in order to justify the attitudes of racists. I really don't want to believe that some people are bad people… but racism is a choice, a habit; not a mere mistake about the facts. Ignoring that legitimises it.)

somenameforme 2y ago
The issue is you're not "making up" anything. One group had a syphilis rate of 30%, about an order of magnitude higher than everybody else. Race, to me, is simply another group, and should be treated as such. So imagine if it turned out that blondes had had a syphilis rate an order of magnitude higher than everybody else. Would it have fundamentally changed things? I don't think so. And indeed at such point we would likely have all sorts of colorful quotes about blondes. Is that hairism, or now somehow not a grave offense because it's a different group?
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  > The issue is you're not "making up" anything. Reread what you're ardently defending, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974970 Your abstract point is (mostly) valid, but you keep trying to tie it back to "and therefore that isn't racist". I described it as ¾ disproved by basic observation. You're defending the other ¼, then acting like that justifies the original claims. I'll assume good faith, and ask: are you aware that you're doing racist propaganda? (I have literally heard these exact arguments, third sentence onwards, from self-professed White Supremacists.)
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Please elaborate and tell me what exactly you think I'm defending or not, as opposed to just linking to somebody quoting some Wiki editor. Because otherwise I have no idea what you're saying. And I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees with my views. When formulating a view I always engage in the same pattern - look to the falsifiable facts and data on any given issue and come to the conclusion that I think is the most logically and factually well supported. Wherever that leads is what I tend to believe. Others say they do the same of course, but I can't help but notice so few seem people comparably obsessed with reading (or providing) sources on information (and the scarce time it is provided, it often tends to be from the TellMeMyOpinionIsRight.com type sources), which makes me doubt the overall sincerity of most on this.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      > Please elaborate Done. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40981302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40981302 > And I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees with my views. Then you aren't introspective enough for this: > It's only by really understanding the past that we might ever try to hope to avoid repeating it. to be anything more than an aspiration. (Or, less charitably, an excuse to make racism apologetics seem socially-acceptable.)
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        I'm not sure that answers my question, but whatever - I'll play along. The statement you quoted was written by a Wiki poster, and is most likely false. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of people infected with syphilis did not pursue medical treatment (at least in Georgia). The clinicians for the Tuskegee study had an extremely difficult time even convincing the farmers to allow themselves to be examined when doctors were proactively approaching them. They ultimately required the assistance of an intermediary civilian (trusted by the farmers) to convince them. To suggest that the farmers were largely indifferent (if not averse) to medical treatment is fully justified, and absent some significant evidence to the contrary should be seen as true. The thing you continue to conspicuously ignore is that it is the behaviors of the clinicians that were wrong, and behaviors are what I think everybody should focus on. Whatever the clinicians thought, said, felt, or whatever else is irrelevant. The race of them, the race of the subjects, and everything else - irrelevant. All that matters is their behavior, which are unjustifiable. Even if every single imaginable bias, prejudice, and everything else were 100% true, it would not make what they did right. And so the real value in the story is looking to put yourselves in their shoes hypothetically, so that you never find yourself in those shoes in reality.

somenameforme 2y ago

The issue is you're not "making up" anything. One group had a syphilis rate of 30%, about an order of magnitude higher than everybody else. Race, to me, is simply another group, and should be treated as such. So imagine if it turned out that blondes had had a syphilis rate an order of magnitude higher than everybody else. Would it have fundamentally changed things? I don't think so. And indeed at such point we would likely have all sorts of colorful quotes about blondes. Is that hairism, or now somehow not a grave offense because it's a different group?

wizzwizz4 2y ago
> The issue is you're not "making up" anything. Reread what you're ardently defending, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974970 Your abstract point is (mostly) valid, but you keep trying to tie it back to "and therefore that isn't racist". I described it as ¾ disproved by basic observation. You're defending the other ¼, then acting like that justifies the original claims. I'll assume good faith, and ask: are you aware that you're doing racist propaganda? (I have literally heard these exact arguments, third sentence onwards, from self-professed White Supremacists.)
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Please elaborate and tell me what exactly you think I'm defending or not, as opposed to just linking to somebody quoting some Wiki editor. Because otherwise I have no idea what you're saying. And I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees with my views. When formulating a view I always engage in the same pattern - look to the falsifiable facts and data on any given issue and come to the conclusion that I think is the most logically and factually well supported. Wherever that leads is what I tend to believe. Others say they do the same of course, but I can't help but notice so few seem people comparably obsessed with reading (or providing) sources on information (and the scarce time it is provided, it often tends to be from the TellMeMyOpinionIsRight.com type sources), which makes me doubt the overall sincerity of most on this.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    > Please elaborate Done. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40981302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40981302 > And I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees with my views. Then you aren't introspective enough for this: > It's only by really understanding the past that we might ever try to hope to avoid repeating it. to be anything more than an aspiration. (Or, less charitably, an excuse to make racism apologetics seem socially-acceptable.)
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      I'm not sure that answers my question, but whatever - I'll play along. The statement you quoted was written by a Wiki poster, and is most likely false. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of people infected with syphilis did not pursue medical treatment (at least in Georgia). The clinicians for the Tuskegee study had an extremely difficult time even convincing the farmers to allow themselves to be examined when doctors were proactively approaching them. They ultimately required the assistance of an intermediary civilian (trusted by the farmers) to convince them. To suggest that the farmers were largely indifferent (if not averse) to medical treatment is fully justified, and absent some significant evidence to the contrary should be seen as true. The thing you continue to conspicuously ignore is that it is the behaviors of the clinicians that were wrong, and behaviors are what I think everybody should focus on. Whatever the clinicians thought, said, felt, or whatever else is irrelevant. The race of them, the race of the subjects, and everything else - irrelevant. All that matters is their behavior, which are unjustifiable. Even if every single imaginable bias, prejudice, and everything else were 100% true, it would not make what they did right. And so the real value in the story is looking to put yourselves in their shoes hypothetically, so that you never find yourself in those shoes in reality.