In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Its odd that you would say robust intellectual debate, because xdaunt's main point is that he gets spilled shouted down for merely asking for objective evidence, or for questioning the veracity of undocumented incidents reported only by partisan entities.
Considering most discussions of racism are based on peoples personal, subjective experiences, I am pretty sure demanding objective evidence is a waste of time. If he doesn’t want to believe them, that is fine but then he should expect to be part of the discussion.
But the idea that he can come into a discussion about racism and demand “objective evidence” that racism was there is pretty dumb. It would be like asking my brother to provide evidence that he was shot at in Iraq before believe he might have PTSD. He would just tell you to fuck off, which is normally what black people do when you ask them to prove that the guy who called them a nigger is racist.
Of course he could ask for more details, but that is part of the "Asking question" rather than challenging the very existence of racism.
Well, when you are requesting/ demanding policy changes that have objective, identifiable, effects and eventually identifiable victims, it seems to me that that is where your logic ends. By the way, its not like the kids at Missouri and Yale are demanding empathy, or even apologies, they want people fired and want racial quotas imposed.
We were not specifically discussing Missouri, but the question and my response below:
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
Although racism is part of the Missouri discussion, it is not specifically what we are talking about right now. You will note that I agreed with you that a lot of the demands of the students in Missouri were unreasonable, but also believe that racism is an issue for that state and has been for a long time.
But oneofthem asked how I came to believe that racism was a huge problem for the US and I explained how.
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Its odd that you would say robust intellectual debate, because xdaunt's main point is that he gets spilled shouted down for merely asking for objective evidence, or for questioning the veracity of undocumented incidents reported only by partisan entities.
Considering most discussions of racism are based on peoples personal, subjective experiences, I am pretty sure demanding objective evidence is a waste of time. If he doesn’t want to believe them, that is fine but then he should expect to be part of the discussion.
But the idea that he can come into a discussion about racism and demand “objective evidence” that racism was there is pretty dumb. It would be like asking my brother to provide evidence that he was shot at in Iraq before believe he might have PTSD. He would just tell you to fuck off, which is normally what black people do when you ask them to prove that the guy who called them a nigger is racist.
Of course he could ask for more details, but that is part of the "Asking question" rather than challenging the very existence of racism.
Well, when you are requesting/ demanding policy changes that have objective, identifiable, effects and eventually identifiable victims, it seems to me that that is where your logic ends. By the way, its not like the kids at Missouri and Yale are demanding empathy, or even apologies, they want people fired and want racial quotas imposed.
To suggest that the Mizzou protesters demanded the firing of the president without mentioning what led to that development is to pretend that they had not sought far less substantial reforms at first. Tsk tsk.
By the way, I don't really even think that firing the President is much of a substantial reform. And the Yale students immediately called for the firing of the two married professors. The Mizzou firings are justified on incompetence alone, regardless of the current situation (said incompetence merely illuminated by the situation). What I am talking about, more importantly, is their policy prescriptions (most of which I don't agree with but that is not relevant), but what is the basis for these? At Mizzou its, undocumented incidents of racial slurs, a poop swastika (which doesn't even make sense to me for anyone, including a racist to do), a fabricated claim about the KKK, and feelings. Elsewhere at Emory its because? At Yale, because of an email calling for common sense tolerance of white girls dressed as belly dancers?
I mean, when people talk about police departments having these problems, I am all ears, the police are an institution that has demonstrated consistent issues with being overzealous and over-stereotyping. Even in those situations its about 50/50 real story vs. unfounded outrage. But we know that is an institution that needs reforms. College campuses? They need reform...in the opposite direction (always secretly trying to engage in unconstitutional activities), if they do.
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Believing that everyone is "a little bit racist" against minority groups because of the human brain doesn't really make any sense at all to me. Just because a group is not the plurality does not mean they are systematically persecuted by or discriminated against everyone in society (which is what you're saying).
In fact, I can easily visualize human societies where there is racism against the plurality by a minority. Just look at the societies of Southern plantations.
This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there is current institutionalized or societal racism in the United States, but I really just wanted to try to understand this viewpoint. Unless you're talking about specific minorities (in which case it sounds like you're saying the human brain is wired to discriminate against black people or other specific groups of people...which is patently absurd). Humans might be hardwired to fear the "other" but that's not "the plurality."
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Maybe you haven't noticed, but I've been heavily engaged in the debate. I'm more than happy to point out how intellectually and morally bankrupt these people are.
From prior posts it looks like you have a big issue with the "over use" of the term racism. You're too focused on the semantics, rather than the extensive evidence that 1) people routinely operate under subconscious racial biases, 2) if they ignore this and assume that their decisions and actions are race neutral it causes them to treat others differently based on race, and 3) if people admit 1) and 2), they can counteract their subconscious racial biases.
It really shouldn't matter what word is used to describe it.
Of course large portions of my arguments focus on the semantics of the issue. The opposition has branded me a "racist" simply because I disagree with them. And they chose that word purposefully. Racist is such a charged word that merely being labeled a racist results in automatic disqualification of your opinions (and beyond that, potential alienation in society). Their gratuitous use of "racist" lets them completely dodge any and all debate on the merits of what they're trying to accomplish. Hence, their aforementioned intellectual and moral bankruptcy....
And I'm more than happy to talk about innate biases and prejudices. You're talking to the guy who infamously said that stereotyping is a crude form of statistics. The other side doesn't want to have that discussion, though.
"Being a racist" and "doing/saying racist things" are not one in the same, though you can't seem to understand the distinction.
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Its odd that you would say robust intellectual debate, because xdaunt's main point is that he gets spilled shouted down for merely asking for objective evidence, or for questioning the veracity of undocumented incidents reported only by partisan entities.
Considering most discussions of racism are based on peoples personal, subjective experiences, I am pretty sure demanding objective evidence is a waste of time. If he doesn’t want to believe them, that is fine but then he should expect to be part of the discussion.
But the idea that he can come into a discussion about racism and demand “objective evidence” that racism was there is pretty dumb. It would be like asking my brother to provide evidence that he was shot at in Iraq before believe he might have PTSD. He would just tell you to fuck off, which is normally what black people do when you ask them to prove that the guy who called them a nigger is racist.
Of course he could ask for more details, but that is part of the "Asking question" rather than challenging the very existence of racism.
Well, when you are requesting/ demanding policy changes that have objective, identifiable, effects and eventually identifiable victims, it seems to me that that is where your logic ends. By the way, its not like the kids at Missouri and Yale are demanding empathy, or even apologies, they want people fired and want racial quotas imposed.
To suggest that the Mizzou protesters demanded the firing of the president without mentioning what led to that development is to pretend that they had not sought far less substantial reforms at first. Tsk tsk.
By the way, I don't really even think that firing the President is much of a substantial reform. And the Yale students immediately called for the firing of the two married professors. The Mizzou firings are justified on incompetence alone, regardless of the current situation (said incompetence merely illuminated by the situation). What I am talking about, more importantly, is their policy prescriptions (most of which I don't agree with but that is not relevant), but what is the basis for these? At Mizzou its, undocumented incidents of racial slurs, a poop swastika (which doesn't even make sense to me for anyone, including a racist to do), a fabricated claim about the KKK, and feelings. Elsewhere at Emory its because? At Yale, because of an email calling for common sense tolerance of white girls dressed as belly dancers?
I mean, when people talk about police departments having these problems, I am all ears, the police are an institution that has demonstrated consistent issues with being overzealous and over-stereotyping. Even in those situations its about 50/50 real story vs. unfounded outrage. But we know that is an institution that needs reforms. College campuses? They need reform...in the opposite direction (always secretly trying to engage in unconstitutional activities), if they do.
It doesn't really seem useful to lump all the college campus protests together, as compelling as that impulse may be. Though the media and even the protesters themselves seem to be doing so, I definitely think that the issues on Missouri's campus are very much tied to the racial tensions of the area in a geographic sense rather than an institutional one. In other words, I'm convinced that the Missouri situation can be fairly contrasted and separated from the Emory and Yale incidents.
It is in that sense that the attitudes of Mizzou's administration seem least defensible relative to the possibility that there exists an air of racism. I mean, the AG for the state of Missouri suggested that the university conduct at least some sort of investigation into the prevalence of racism on campus. Given our relative inability to wrestle with the facts of the situation with any granularity, I'm pretty confident in deferring to the legal recommendations of a state AG when they sound in favor of what would otherwise be a very liberal position to take, that being the notion that a university has a responsibility to react very proactively in the face of racial tensions, imagined or otherwise.
The Yale students and them calling for the firing of those teachers is bad, but that is also painting the students with a broad brush. There are students with complaints about the professor’s response to the whole costume issue that also denounced the demands for the them to be fired. But those students didn't grab headlines, but they will be involved with future discussions. And the real discussion will happen beyond our view, but everyone focuses demands to be fired and general clownishness without really putting a head count to how many people did it.
Most progressives will say that “call out culture” is a huge problem right now. That some progressives are more interested in “beings seen as the most progressive and active” rather than seeking solutions. That their activism is more about the performance, rather than seeking change. And it’s a hard discussion to have because its nuanced.
On November 13 2015 05:59 Plansix wrote: The Yale students and them calling for the firing of those teachers is bad, but that is also painting the students with a broad brush. There are students with complaints about the professor’s response to the whole costume issue that also denounced the demands for the them to be fired. But those students didn't grab headlines, but they will be involved with future discussions. And the real discussion will happen beyond our view, but everyone focuses demands to be fired and general clownishness without really putting a head count to how many people did it.
Most progressives will say that “call out culture” is a huge problem right now. That some progressives are more interested in “beings seen as the most progressive and active” rather than seeking solutions. That their activism is more about the performance, rather than seeking change. And it’s a hard discussion to have because its nuanced.
That's not a problem unique to activism though, just look at this election cycle, or any political debate.
On November 13 2015 05:59 Plansix wrote: The Yale students and them calling for the firing of those teachers is bad, but that is also painting the students with a broad brush. There are students with complaints about the professor’s response to the whole costume issue that also denounced the demands for the them to be fired. But those students didn't grab headlines, but they will be involved with future discussions. And the real discussion will happen beyond our view, but everyone focuses demands to be fired and general clownishness without really putting a head count to how many people did it.
Most progressives will say that “call out culture” is a huge problem right now. That some progressives are more interested in “beings seen as the most progressive and active” rather than seeking solutions. That their activism is more about the performance, rather than seeking change. And it’s a hard discussion to have because its nuanced.
You managed to vocalize (err, write out) my thoughts precisely! This call-out culture you mention is precisely what drives me bonkers.
On November 13 2015 05:59 Plansix wrote: The Yale students and them calling for the firing of those teachers is bad, but that is also painting the students with a broad brush. There are students with complaints about the professor’s response to the whole costume issue that also denounced the demands for the them to be fired. But those students didn't grab headlines, but they will be involved with future discussions. And the real discussion will happen beyond our view, but everyone focuses demands to be fired and general clownishness without really putting a head count to how many people did it.
Most progressives will say that “call out culture” is a huge problem right now. That some progressives are more interested in “beings seen as the most progressive and active” rather than seeking solutions. That their activism is more about the performance, rather than seeking change. And it’s a hard discussion to have because its nuanced.
That's not a problem unique to activism though, just look at this election cycle, or any political debate.
Progressives view it as a problem right now due to the nature of social media. But you are correct that it is a larger issue that goes beyond just activist. The internet is becoming a less safe place to have any opinion that might anger anyone, regardless of political leaning. You can just have a photo that makes people mad and it could go viral and that is the end of it. You’re internet famous until people decide to get angry at someone else.
On November 13 2015 05:59 Plansix wrote: The Yale students and them calling for the firing of those teachers is bad, but that is also painting the students with a broad brush. There are students with complaints about the professor’s response to the whole costume issue that also denounced the demands for the them to be fired. But those students didn't grab headlines, but they will be involved with future discussions. And the real discussion will happen beyond our view, but everyone focuses demands to be fired and general clownishness without really putting a head count to how many people did it.
Most progressives will say that “call out culture” is a huge problem right now. That some progressives are more interested in “beings seen as the most progressive and active” rather than seeking solutions. That their activism is more about the performance, rather than seeking change. And it’s a hard discussion to have because its nuanced.
You managed to vocalize (err, write out) my thoughts precisely! This call-out culture you mention is precisely what drives me bonkers.
Its not even unique to progressives either. The viral nature of the internet and general anonymity makes it a big problem for almost anything social media service.
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Believing that everyone is "a little bit racist" against minority groups because of the human brain doesn't really make any sense at all to me. Just because a group is not the plurality does not mean they are systematically persecuted by or discriminated against everyone in society (which is what you're saying).
In fact, I can easily visualize human societies where there is racism against the plurality by a minority. Just look at the societies of Southern plantations.
This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there is current institutionalized or societal racism in the United States, but I really just wanted to try to understand this viewpoint. Unless you're talking about specific minorities (in which case it sounds like you're saying the human brain is wired to discriminate against black people or other specific groups of people...which is patently absurd). Humans might be hardwired to fear the "other" but that's not "the plurality."
I was referring to implicit racial bias, AKA unconscious racism. You can find a lot of good explainers online, but what it boils down to is that human brains make snap decisions based upon stereotypes all the time, for evolutionary reasons. This causes problems when popular culture portrays groups in certain ways, thereby creating stereotypes. These stereotypes affect human behavior - people behave in a racist manner even though they don't mean to.
The effects of this can be relatively harmless (e.g., people tend to believe Asians are better at math) or really really awful (e.g., people, including police officers tend to view black people as more threatening or dangerous).
Here's a link that GH posted a while back which leads to quizzes that test your personal implicit biases:
Obviously the methodology isn't perfect, but at least when I took the test, I could tell that my brain wanted to make certain associations based on race/gender/etc. I believe in racial equality (heck, genetically speaking, I don't think race is even really a thing) and I consider myself a feminist, but if I'm remembering correctly the tests said that I was subconsciously slightly racist, and moderately sexist.
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Maybe you haven't noticed, but I've been heavily engaged in the debate. I'm more than happy to point out how intellectually and morally bankrupt these people are.
From prior posts it looks like you have a big issue with the "over use" of the term racism. You're too focused on the semantics, rather than the extensive evidence that 1) people routinely operate under subconscious racial biases, 2) if they ignore this and assume that their decisions and actions are race neutral it causes them to treat others differently based on race, and 3) if people admit 1) and 2), they can counteract their subconscious racial biases.
It really shouldn't matter what word is used to describe it.
Of course large portions of my arguments focus on the semantics of the issue. The opposition has branded me a "racist" simply because I disagree with them. And they chose that word purposefully. Racist is such a charged word that merely being labeled a racist results in automatic disqualification of your opinions (and beyond that, potential alienation in society). Their gratuitous use of "racist" lets them completely dodge any and all debate on the merits of what they're trying to accomplish. Hence, their aforementioned intellectual and moral bankruptcy....
And I'm more than happy to talk about innate biases and prejudices. You're talking to the guy who infamously said that stereotyping is a crude form of statistics. The other side doesn't want to have that discussion, though.
"Being a racist" and "doing/saying racist things" are not one in the same, though you can't seem to understand the distinction.
Can you please explain the difference? Is it just the addition that racists not only say and do racist things, but also at least think them, even if there's no verbal/ physical verification?
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Maybe you haven't noticed, but I've been heavily engaged in the debate. I'm more than happy to point out how intellectually and morally bankrupt these people are.
From prior posts it looks like you have a big issue with the "over use" of the term racism. You're too focused on the semantics, rather than the extensive evidence that 1) people routinely operate under subconscious racial biases, 2) if they ignore this and assume that their decisions and actions are race neutral it causes them to treat others differently based on race, and 3) if people admit 1) and 2), they can counteract their subconscious racial biases.
It really shouldn't matter what word is used to describe it.
Of course large portions of my arguments focus on the semantics of the issue. The opposition has branded me a "racist" simply because I disagree with them. And they chose that word purposefully. Racist is such a charged word that merely being labeled a racist results in automatic disqualification of your opinions (and beyond that, potential alienation in society). Their gratuitous use of "racist" lets them completely dodge any and all debate on the merits of what they're trying to accomplish. Hence, their aforementioned intellectual and moral bankruptcy....
And I'm more than happy to talk about innate biases and prejudices. You're talking to the guy who infamously said that stereotyping is a crude form of statistics. The other side doesn't want to have that discussion, though.
"Being a racist" and "doing/saying racist things" are not one in the same, though you can't seem to understand the distinction.
Can you please explain the difference? Is it just the addition that racists not only say and do racist things, but also at least think them, even if there's no verbal/ physical verification?
I am not a racist, I think racist things at times. I'm must aware of them and avoid acting on them. Like if I write a short story, the majority my characters start out as white because I am white and biased to make characters like me. But I am aware of that and make an effort to fix that.
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Maybe you haven't noticed, but I've been heavily engaged in the debate. I'm more than happy to point out how intellectually and morally bankrupt these people are.
From prior posts it looks like you have a big issue with the "over use" of the term racism. You're too focused on the semantics, rather than the extensive evidence that 1) people routinely operate under subconscious racial biases, 2) if they ignore this and assume that their decisions and actions are race neutral it causes them to treat others differently based on race, and 3) if people admit 1) and 2), they can counteract their subconscious racial biases.
It really shouldn't matter what word is used to describe it.
Of course large portions of my arguments focus on the semantics of the issue. The opposition has branded me a "racist" simply because I disagree with them. And they chose that word purposefully. Racist is such a charged word that merely being labeled a racist results in automatic disqualification of your opinions (and beyond that, potential alienation in society). Their gratuitous use of "racist" lets them completely dodge any and all debate on the merits of what they're trying to accomplish. Hence, their aforementioned intellectual and moral bankruptcy....
And I'm more than happy to talk about innate biases and prejudices. You're talking to the guy who infamously said that stereotyping is a crude form of statistics. The other side doesn't want to have that discussion, though.
"Being a racist" and "doing/saying racist things" are not one in the same, though you can't seem to understand the distinction.
Can you please explain the difference? Is it just the addition that racists not only say and do racist things, but also at least think them, even if there's no verbal/ physical verification?
I am not a racist, I think racist things at times. I'm must aware of them and avoid acting on them. Like if I write a short story, the majority my characters start out as white because I am white and biased to make characters like me. But I am aware of that and make an effort to fix that.
I'm still not sure why doing/ saying racist things wouldn't make you a racist though. Maybe you're not loudly or aggressively racist, but isn't doing racist things the very definition of being racist? As in, a racist is one who does racist things?
On November 13 2015 09:35 heliusx wrote: That's a pretty poorly written response plansix. Are you saying its a "racist thing" if you have too many whiteys in your story?
Its racial bias. I naturally gravitate towards my own experiences and create things based on that. Professional authors talk about it too. It doesn't make me a bad person or a rampant racist unless I completely disregarded that fact or refused to accept that it exists.
On November 13 2015 09:35 heliusx wrote: That's a pretty poorly written response plansix. Are you saying its a "racist thing" if you have too many whiteys in your story?
Its racial bias. I naturally gravitate towards my own experiences and create things based on that. Professional authors talk about it too. It doesn't make me a bad person or a rampant racist unless I completely disregarded that fact or refused to accept that it exists.
That sounds like a semantics argument to me. "I'm not racist; I'm just racially biased." Meh :/
On November 13 2015 09:35 heliusx wrote: That's a pretty poorly written response plansix. Are you saying its a "racist thing" if you have too many whiteys in your story?
Its racial bias. I naturally gravitate towards my own experiences and create things based on that. Professional authors talk about it too. It doesn't make me a bad person or a rampant racist unless I completely disregarded that fact or refused to accept that it exists.
That sounds like a semantics argument to me. "I'm not racist; I'm just racially biased." Meh :/
Is there really much of a difference? I'm not actively racist, but I am also not all knowing about people and cultures. I could hold something to be true about any race, not knowing I am incorrect. The racism starts when I refuse to accept that I am incorrect once I am told.
I think this video beautifully captures what is wrong with these black-led anti-racism crusades. There is a complete lack of accountability. Any time someone brings up issues with black culture or instances where black people are racist, they are quickly shushed. The prevalence of racism in black communities is always refuted with reasons why they aren't to blame for various white-induced social barriers to social/financial mobility.
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Maybe you haven't noticed, but I've been heavily engaged in the debate. I'm more than happy to point out how intellectually and morally bankrupt these people are.
From prior posts it looks like you have a big issue with the "over use" of the term racism. You're too focused on the semantics, rather than the extensive evidence that 1) people routinely operate under subconscious racial biases, 2) if they ignore this and assume that their decisions and actions are race neutral it causes them to treat others differently based on race, and 3) if people admit 1) and 2), they can counteract their subconscious racial biases.
It really shouldn't matter what word is used to describe it.
Of course large portions of my arguments focus on the semantics of the issue. The opposition has branded me a "racist" simply because I disagree with them. And they chose that word purposefully. Racist is such a charged word that merely being labeled a racist results in automatic disqualification of your opinions (and beyond that, potential alienation in society). Their gratuitous use of "racist" lets them completely dodge any and all debate on the merits of what they're trying to accomplish. Hence, their aforementioned intellectual and moral bankruptcy....
And I'm more than happy to talk about innate biases and prejudices. You're talking to the guy who infamously said that stereotyping is a crude form of statistics. The other side doesn't want to have that discussion, though.
"Being a racist" and "doing/saying racist things" are not one in the same, though you can't seem to understand the distinction.
Can you please explain the difference? Is it just the addition that racists not only say and do racist things, but also at least think them, even if there's no verbal/ physical verification?
I am not a racist, I think racist things at times. I'm must aware of them and avoid acting on them. Like if I write a short story, the majority my characters start out as white because I am white and biased to make characters like me. But I am aware of that and make an effort to fix that.
This isn't racism or even racial bias, though. It's writing being writer-centric.
It's natural, expected, and unavoidable that a writer's work will contain what they know. Of course, there are writers that will go above and beyond in researching unknown things heavily, but that will always come down to time, effort, and money. And, frankly, most writers (especially ones who are not notable) will have little-to-no RoI in expanding their reference pools.
Not to mention that most writers are average or mediocre.
Now, you could argue the fact that, say, North American and European writing is disproportionately dominated by white people, or that there is a severe lack of cultural exposure in many areas that limits knowledge. And you can certainly criticize writers that have time and money for not challenging themselves (in more ways than just this).
But I wouldn't expect a white middle-class person to be able to write about other cultures, any more than I'd expect a suburban kid to be able to write about a farmer's life, unless they've experienced them or taken time to research fully.
EPT
