4 ms·

You might live in an extremely free country and have no fear about political prosecution but still fear social prosecution. If someone I was friends with made

You might live in an extremely free country and have no fear about political prosecution but still fear social prosecution. If someone I was friends with made racist remarks, they wouldn't be prosecuted for that. But I would stop being their friend. Similarly if I was the only one in my friend group against racism and advocate firefly against it, they would probably stop being my friends.

imtringued 1y ago
Your case doesn't sound reasonable and it also doesn't fit the current zeitgeist. What people these days are worried about isn't that they are racist and have no outlets for their racism. It's that they worry that whatever they say will be reinterpreted as racism when they were making an honest attempt to not be racist.
- NoahZuniga 1y ago
  > What people these days are worried about isn't that they are racist and have no outlets for their racism. It's that they worry that whatever they say will be reinterpreted as racism when they were making an honest attempt to not be racist. So you agree with my point that people could face social prosecution for dissenting (even when they are correct), so we should have anonymous platforms where they can champion their ideas. > Your case doesn't sound reasonable and it also doesn't fit the current zeitgeist. These were just extreme examples to indicate that there can be social repercussions to dissenting. Maybe a more convincing example is that if I advocate for making it easier to build housing because that will lower the cost of housing and many of my friends are homeowners, they might really not like me because lowering the cost of housing directly lowers their net worth.
slg 1y ago
>If someone I was friends with made racist remarks, they wouldn't be prosecuted for that. But I would stop being their friend. So you want your friend to be able to anonymously express their racism while being able to hide it from you? I can't imagine advocating for that as a desired goal rather than a negative side effect. >Similarly if I was the only one in my friend group against racism and advocate firefly against it, they would probably stop being my friends. If we are talking about a society level problem, I think it is a little silly to think a society as toxic as this hypothetical one could be saved by anonymous internet posting. For the record, I'm not as against anonymous posting as the person who started this specific comment thread, I just think this line of argument is advocating for a band-aid over bigger issues.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  I live in a society as toxic as that. It's New Zealand. One of the minor parties currently in government aims to undo systemic racism. However, the popular opinion is that they are the racists because of that. I don't dare tell people that I voted for them because I'll be judged as a racist by some of my family members and loose friends. If I say it on the local internet groups, others will be hostile to me for it. Anonymity helps people to speak up about these issues. How do we solve those bigger issues when we live in an emperor's new clothes society? Wait for children who haven't learnt the rules to point them out?
  - Chris2048 1y ago
    > aims to undo systemic racism ... they are the racists because of that this sounds like a suspicious characterisation - how are they trying to undo systemic racism, and what do they identify as "systemic racism"?
    - foxglacier 1y ago
      https://www.act.org.nz/defending-equal-rights-democracy https://www.act.org.nz/defending-equal-rights-democracy For example, "Ended race-based waitlists" (for healthcare).
      - Chris2048 1y ago
        Which race was favoured? Did labour justify the racial-basis as addressing pre-existing inequality?
        foxglacier 1y ago
        Maori and possible Pacific Island. I'm not sure how it was justified but I imagine probably because of worse health outcomes for those groups. Trying to correct an inequality with another inequality is still discrimination. People who want that should be honest and identify themselves as racists, not the ones who want to stop racism.

imtringued 1y ago

Your case doesn't sound reasonable and it also doesn't fit the current zeitgeist. What people these days are worried about isn't that they are racist and have no outlets for their racism. It's that they worry that whatever they say will be reinterpreted as racism when they were making an honest attempt to not be racist.

NoahZuniga 1y ago
> What people these days are worried about isn't that they are racist and have no outlets for their racism. It's that they worry that whatever they say will be reinterpreted as racism when they were making an honest attempt to not be racist. So you agree with my point that people could face social prosecution for dissenting (even when they are correct), so we should have anonymous platforms where they can champion their ideas. > Your case doesn't sound reasonable and it also doesn't fit the current zeitgeist. These were just extreme examples to indicate that there can be social repercussions to dissenting. Maybe a more convincing example is that if I advocate for making it easier to build housing because that will lower the cost of housing and many of my friends are homeowners, they might really not like me because lowering the cost of housing directly lowers their net worth.

slg 1y ago

>If someone I was friends with made racist remarks, they wouldn't be prosecuted for that. But I would stop being their friend. So you want your friend to be able to anonymously express their racism while being able to hide it from you? I can't imagine advocating for that as a desired goal rather than a negative side effect. >Similarly if I was the only one in my friend group against racism and advocate firefly against it, they would probably stop being my friends. If we are talking about a society level problem, I think it is a little silly to think a society as toxic as this hypothetical one could be saved by anonymous internet posting. For the record, I'm not as against anonymous posting as the person who started this specific comment thread, I just think this line of argument is advocating for a band-aid over bigger issues.

foxglacier 1y ago
I live in a society as toxic as that. It's New Zealand. One of the minor parties currently in government aims to undo systemic racism. However, the popular opinion is that they are the racists because of that. I don't dare tell people that I voted for them because I'll be judged as a racist by some of my family members and loose friends. If I say it on the local internet groups, others will be hostile to me for it. Anonymity helps people to speak up about these issues. How do we solve those bigger issues when we live in an emperor's new clothes society? Wait for children who haven't learnt the rules to point them out?
- Chris2048 1y ago
  > aims to undo systemic racism ... they are the racists because of that this sounds like a suspicious characterisation - how are they trying to undo systemic racism, and what do they identify as "systemic racism"?
  - foxglacier 1y ago
    https://www.act.org.nz/defending-equal-rights-democracy https://www.act.org.nz/defending-equal-rights-democracy For example, "Ended race-based waitlists" (for healthcare).
    - Chris2048 1y ago
      Which race was favoured? Did labour justify the racial-basis as addressing pre-existing inequality?
      - foxglacier 1y ago
        Maori and possible Pacific Island. I'm not sure how it was justified but I imagine probably because of worse health outcomes for those groups. Trying to correct an inequality with another inequality is still discrimination. People who want that should be honest and identify themselves as racists, not the ones who want to stop racism.