Racism is contextual

[phiwum]

Stuff like this is why I rarely use the term 'racist'. It's too vague and has been used to encompass way to many issues.

Here's my definition of racist :
- The belief that members of certain racial groups are less then one's own group.

and maybe
- Policies that explicitly treat individuals differently because of their race.

Anything outside of that is not racism. It might be bad, but you can't simply say "that's racist" and expect everyone to fall in line with your declaration.

Regarding the first clause, and this isn't a criticism but an observation, one might be racist while treating everyone equally, for fear of penalty.

The personal definition of racism has to do with attitudes, which are not seen, rather than behaviors, which are seen.

 

[Giz]

Yeah, if I was calling the shots I would. It's a no-win though, everybody hates new words and everybody hates re-purposed words and nobody will listen to nuanced words. Though in the fork where your choice is get everyone to understand and care what this unfamiliar word 'bias' means, or to nudge 'racism' which everyone understands at least 'it sucks if you're on the receiving end of it and it ought to be fought' over into something non-pejorative, I'd look at arguments like this one and go for option A. I don't know though, I'm not a sociologist, it seems like people in the know think that getting people to talk more is better and a little misplaced outrage definitely drives attention. They'd probably say that more people end up aware of bias by making them argue about what racism is than by trying to tell them what bias is.

I'm kind of stunned at the idea that "bias" is an unfamiliar word that people would need to have explained to them.

Perhaps 'societal bias' might be good? That way you avoid the Orwellian sounding 'unconscious bias' (or maybe it is 'original sin' more than Orwell, either way... it will get people riled up as it implies personal culpability/ignorance, rather than an uneven cultural or societal playing field).

 

[Lithrael]

Ok at this point this is getting ridiculous. The thing that they say or do that gets the outrage machine going and gets them, for instance, fired, is not what gets them fired according to you.

I don't think there's any possible discussion left.

That's fair, we see things differently.

I imagine ten guys say on Twitter, 'tbh, some black dudes can be pretty scary looking'
Innocuous comment, not actually racist by any measure, just off-putting to some
Nine of them get nothin'
One of them works for "Center for the Promotion and Equity of All People" and the next day 12,000 people retweeted that guy going HOLY SMOKES GET A LOAD OF THIS GUY, cute little black kid with his photo 'Am I scary looking mister?' 5000 moms say that made them cry, and the day after that he's fired.

You'd say he was fired over accusations of racism, I'd say he was fired because we haven't figured out how to cope with viral ridicule/bad PR.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"Racist" is probably going to be rehabilitated as non-pejorative around the same time as the swastika. Maybe try a different word?

What word do you use for someone who shoots a black man in a situation that they wouldn't shoot a white man because they find black men more fundamentally threatening?

If racist acts and racism don't work what does? Bias?

Of course then they accuse you of calling them racist and you are there yet again.

 

[Lithrael]

I'm kind of stunned at the idea that "bias" is an unfamiliar word that people would need to have explained to them.

Perhaps 'societal bias' might be good? That way you avoid the Orwellian sounding 'unconscious bias' (or maybe it is 'original sin' more than Orwell, either way... it will get people riled up as it implies personal culpability/ignorance, rather than an uneven cultural or societal playing field).

Yeah, sounds reasonable. The counterpoint of course to 'the more people talking about it the better' is that it's human nature to double down when feeling attacked and NOBODY listens to 'no, I'm not trying to accuse you of anything' so at the end of the day I have no idea which one ends up getting ideas disseminated further.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Does anyone really think that "I am not saying you are racist, I am saying you acted in a racially biased manner" is really going to be much better?

It really does seem like white sensibilities are more important than black lives.

 

[Butter!]

Oh my god. I hope we don't have any smokers posting in this thread. With all the straw piled around, that could become a serious fire hazard.

 

[ahhell]

Does anyone really think that "I am not saying you are racist, I am saying you acted in a racially biased manner" is really going to be much better?

It really does seem like white sensibilities are more important than black lives.

I think its more about framing the issues in a way that doesn't immediately put folks on the defensive, thus enabling change. Not saying white sensibilities are more important than black lives but saying that in order to save black lives, you have to take white sensibilities into account.

 

[Giz]

I think its more about framing the issues in a way that doesn't immediately put folks on the defensive, thus enabling change. Not saying white sensibilities are more important than black lives but saying that in order to save black lives, you have to take white sensibilities into account.

Right, telling someone that because they hadn't necessarily thought of something, that they are scum and p.s. they should do what you say due to inherent guilt and not even dream of debating it... is not good tactics if you actually want constructive change.

OTOH, if you want feel good posturing, it's perfect.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think its more about framing the issues in a way that doesn't immediately put folks on the defensive, thus enabling change. Not saying white sensibilities are more important than black lives but saying that in order to save black lives, you have to take white sensibilities into account.

And how do you address someone's racial biased actions without putting them on the defensive?

Hell you can not even talk about Trumps overt racism without people getting offended. It seems ignoring it is the only thing that people do find acceptable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Right, telling someone that because they hadn't necessarily thought of something, that they are scum and p.s. they should do what you say due to inherent guilt and not even dream of debating it... is not good tactics if you actually want constructive change.

And of course admitting any racial bias makes one a racist so one must always appear to be above reproach and we can not even talk about the polices actions because #bluelivesmatter.

So how do you talk about race and the death of say Tamir Rice while preserving white feelings? You say you have a better way of talking about these things, well put it out there.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

This seems to say that the only thing we can do is ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Burying your head in the sand is not really a good solution to your problems.

Avoiding pointless debates with people who use their own made up definition of words, does not translate as "burying your head in the sand". But considering you like to re-define things, I'm not amazed that you define it as that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Avoiding pointless debates with people who use their own made up definition of words, does not translate as "burying your head in the sand". But considering you like to re-define things, I'm not amazed that you define it as that.

You are clear there is no competitive advantage to being white, this of course logically follows that there is no disadvantage to being black. Ergo there is no such thing as racism or racial bias. QED.

 

[Mycroft]

The goal is to prove that they are not racist. So actions that they could perpetrate with out ever thinking about it and realizing that race had a strong influence on their actions have to be discounted as not racist because then they would be racist.

The goal is to prove they are not racist because they don’t believe themselves to be racist. Their perspective is different from yours. It may not be correct, but it’s part of the culture they grew up in and it’s very hard to see your own culture objectively.

Absolutely, we need to talk about how to be aware of your racism and less influenced by it. But to do that we need to get under peoples skin by identifying actions that race has a strong effect on as having racist principles, and that gets under their skin and makes them fight for a binary racist/non racist where they are better than neonazis so they can't be racist.

We need to foster understanding. I don’t agree that “getting under people’s skin” is necessarily the best way to accomplish that.

Because we still want to stigmatize racist behaviors.

Do we really?

It seems to me that maybe stigmatizing racism gets in the way of solving racism.

To solve racism we have to be able to talk about racism. I think it would help to talk about it honestly, openly and without judgement. The problem is that you can’t talk about it without someone being at risk of being called a racist and stigmatized. Of course people are going to resist that, who wouldn’t?

It works in reverse too. People of colour often feel like they can’t talk about their own experiences with racism, at least not with white people, because they fear being stigmatized as the overly sensitive snowflake who either can’t fit in or is just waiting for the opportunity to sue somebody. It’s perfectly reasonable to fear that kind of stigmatization as being a career killer.

Maybe understanding would be better than stigmatization?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You are clear there is no competitive advantage to being white, this of course logically follows that there is no disadvantage to being black.

Correct.

Ergo there is no such thing as racism or racial bias. QED.

Incorrect.

 

[sadhatter]

Yeah, but the issue is that they turn up even more than their representation in the overall population.

More importantly, it doesn't need to be that way. White people are capable of seeing and understanding the experiences and perspectives of non-white people, so it's not necessary to default to white in casting just to appeal to that majority.

If you are saying that white people can deal, you realize that you are saying that poc can't right?

If you put this odd moral impetus soley on white people you are in fact saying that poc are incapable of the same feat.

As well labeling this as a white person issue is beyond myopic.

Go watch a lot of film from any country, the majority is represented well and minorities, not so much. If I had a dime for every "white american" character in a Korean film who was clearly 75% asain I'd be rich. But when you don't bother to actually look at other cultures, you are right, it appears to be a white person thing.

 

[autumn1971]

Perfectly illustrating the problem here. The way most progressives are using the word they fully intentionally include relatively innocuous biases because they got tired of typing 'racial bias' and 90% of the time getting the same 'so you're calling me racist' reaction out of it anyway. AND because the cumulative effects of all this non-hateful racial bias are still seriously messing with people's lives and is there a single word better suited to describe it than 'racism'? We've got the much more precise term "white supremacist" for people who think minorities are literally inferior, though it's true if we take 'racist' and change its meaning from the one you've been using, then we no longer have a handy word for people that just dislike black people.

Why is there no point to the word if it describes something that nearly everyone does, isn't particularly their fault, and that, yet, it could make life a lot less of a slog for many people if everyone kept an eye out for it? You mean that it's not a pejorative anymore at that point? Is it pointless if it's not a pejorative?

I think that would be "institutionalized racism." The subtle influences of your upbringing and culture. Like my grandmother looking at a baby and telling the mother, " what a beautiful little pickaninny."

 

[ponderingturtle]

The goal is to prove they are not racist because they don’t believe themselves to be racist. Their perspective is different from yours. It may not be correct, but it’s part of the culture they grew up in and it’s very hard to see your own culture objectively.

And that means that they are going to be invested in not changing their totally not racist behavior and continue the established biased acts they do.

We need to foster understanding. I don’t agree that “getting under people’s skin” is necessarily the best way to accomplish that.

So how do we adress real problems while preserving the delicate sensibilities?

Do we really?

It seems to me that maybe stigmatizing racism gets in the way of solving racism.

But with no stigma what is the impediment to give up the racist lifestyle?

To solve racism we have to be able to talk about racism. I think it would help to talk about it honestly, openly and without judgement. The problem is that you can’t talk about it without someone being at risk of being called a racist and stigmatized. Of course people are going to resist that, who wouldn’t?

So how do you talk about the racism that people perpetuate without calling them personally racist? Will they ever not hear that they are racist for their perpetuating of racism?

It works in reverse too. People of colour often feel like they can’t talk about their own experiences with racism, at least not with white people, because they fear being stigmatized as the overly sensitive snowflake who either can’t fit in or is just waiting for the opportunity to sue somebody. It’s perfectly reasonable to fear that kind of stigmatization as being a career killer.

Maybe understanding would be better than stigmatization?

So start by getting rid of the stigma of violating equal rights acts and equal housing acts? What would destigmatizing racism so that someone can say "I am a racist" with out there being a stigma mean?

All you are doing is criticising, you are not putting forward how this hypothetical method of talking about race would even work.

Take privilege it is the basic idea that due to racial bias in all levels of society it is more difficult for a black person to achieve the same things as a white person. It is the simple outcome the bias so how can someone argue that there is such a bias against some groups and that as a member of a different group with fewer biases against it they have a competitive advantage? Why is that whole thing wrong? Where does the logical progression go wrong?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Correct.



Incorrect.

But how can racism exist if it never hurts anyone? It is a mere hypothetical that doesn't effect anything.

But then it means that getting a job interview at a higher rate is a meaningless thing that has no effect. When do these real measurable things add up to an effect that harms people?

 

[sadhatter]

Does anyone really think that "I am not saying you are racist, I am saying you acted in a racially biased manner" is really going to be much better?

It really does seem like white sensibilities are more important than black lives.

Really because from here it looks like when people act like ******** other people tend not to want to listen to them.

Funny how being a hyperbolic acidic dramatic movement has that effect.