What we mean when we talk about racism

[ponderingturtle]

If literally everyone is racist, then the word loses meaning.

I.e., Obama noting that "racism" doesn't explain everything.

It lets true racists off the hook, because then if even Obama is racist, for not seeing that every single problem is the direct result of racism, then well, the word is basically stripped of meaning.

It's an academic "theory of everything" position. The real world is more complicated. Not everything is best explained through the lens of racism.

Yea there is often nothing racist about treating black people differently because they are black. Calling that racism destroys its use against real racists. So killing a black person when in the same situation you would kill a white person is not a racist act, and calling it such destroys all use of racism as a term. It is only if you set out to kill a black that it could be racist.

 

[Distracted1]

We have a common term "racism" because toxic tribalism based on skin coloration is a sadly common one throughout history, so it's just handy to have a word to refer to it.

But that doesn't make it functionally all that different from other forms of tribalism.

This is why I bristle at discussion in which one side is obviously trying to set up a "gotcha" via claiming something isn't "technically racism" but some other form of bigotry as if that matters.

Racism is singled out from many other forms of bigotry in that it can have tangible negative effects to one accused of it (loss of employment, lawsuits, etc.).
For that reason, it is important to tease out racism from other forms of bigotry.
Think of the difference between being considered someone who is "kinky", and someone who is a pedophile. Both describe someone with unusual sexual appetites, but one of the labels would create difficulties that the other would not.

 

[dann]

Just like as long as it is not conscious racial profiling is totally not racist.

No, that is racist! It may be easier to deal with - a little clarification, and the problem is solved - but it's still racist. Totally!
A case in point:

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, that is racist! It may be easier to deal with - a little clarification, and the problem is solved - but it's still racist. Totally!
A case in point:

Not by the definition provided in the quoted post though. And that is exactly the time of racism that so many people in this thread are arguing is not racism, because if unconscious bias is racism then everyone is racist and racism loses all meaning.

 

[dann]

No, it has to be bias, conscious or unconscious, based on race.

When I was a very young child and thought that all black people were cannibals (primarily due to a stupid Disney vinyl record), I was racist.
However, It was obviously a very different kind of racism than the one that thinks of black people as the reason why you don't have a job or why you have to pay much too much in taxes in order to support the lazy bastards, i.e. the kind of racism that deliberately invents self-serving lies about another race.

And for this reason, my racism was also very easily cured: I just had to be told that I'd got the wrong idea, that the record was fiction. We all know that an attempt to cure the everyday racism of adults in the same way is much more difficult.

The racism of the Disney record was also more harmless than the Trump-rally-kind of racism. The story may even have been written in Denmark by a Danish writer at a time, the 1950s, when there were no black people in Denmark and they could therefore be used akin to the evil Martians in modern fairy tales. It was probably more harmful to naïve white children than to blacks. (Not that it wasn't still stupid!)


ETA: The kind of stories like the one on the Disney record disappeared in the 1960s when people started to become more politically aware, helped along by reports about racism and the Civil Rights Movement in the USA. Today only racists lament the loss of those stories.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, it has to be bias, conscious or unconscious, based on race.

When I was a very young child and thought that all black people were cannibals (primarily due to a stupid Disney vinyl record), I was racist.
However, It was obviously a very different kind of racism than the one that thinks of black people as the reason why you don't have a job or why you have to pay much too much in taxes in order to support the lazy bastards, i.e. the kind of racism that deliberately invents self-serving lies about another race.

And for this reason, my racism was also very easily cured: I just had to be told that I'd got the wrong idea, that the record was fiction. We all know that an attempt to cure the everyday racism of adults in the same way is much more difficult.

By the way, the racism of the Disney record was also more harmless than the Trump-rally-kind of racism. The story may even have been written in Denmark by a Danish writer at a time, the 1950s, when there were no black people in Denmark and they could therefore be used akin to the evil Martians in modern fairy tales. It was probably more harmful to naïve white children than to blacks. (Not that it wasn't still stupid!)

Yes and as everyone has unconcious biases at work constantly everyone is racist and by the way they define it racism loses all meaning. Because they want racism to be a grave sin, which sure conscious bias certainly is. But viewing unconcious bias as a grave sin makes dealing with it harder, the people get defensive when you suggest they treat black people differently even when they provably do.

An example of how to deal with this was shown in John Oliver's recent Last Week Tonight. California they started weighing gauze after delivery so that doctors have a real measurement of blood loss instead of their perception of it. Because doctors likely mostly unconscious biases kill lots of black women.

 

[d4m10n]

I'll deal with it when I see it.

The admissions folks at Harvard know that these kids are demonstrably superior when it comes to the best quantitative predictors of academic performance, and they implemented a squishy subjective method in order to arbitrarily lower their likelihood of admission. Racism? I’d say obviously so.

 

[Cain]

I think racism is thinking of people or treating people differently based solely on their race. Simple as that.

By nature we make inferences and create expectations based on limited information. Just because someone has what sounds like an Irish accent does not mean they spent part of their life in Ireland; the person could be faking (as I sometimes do). Randi's standard talk often included a bit where he'd reveal his "glasses" were just a frame with the lenses removed. Ninety-point-nine-nine-GFY percent of the time, however, such assumptions would prove correct.

You're meeting with a prospective client named "Alexia Jones" at the nearby Starbucks. You're running a couple minutes late, and scan the establishment. Who or what are you looking for?

I know, I know, a cup with some version of "Alexia" written on it. The point is you're probably not going to squint to read a cup in front of a white guy who is seated with three other people. You're going to survey the place and conclude that the Black woman sitting alone might be your client, and that's perfectly understandable.

Jill thinks all Jewish people are greedy.
D’Vonne thinks Asians are super smart.

I would say these are cases of naive racism, and if such beliefs are not easily dispelled then it's because they're held by stupid people. In reality we're dealing with dispositions and probabilities -- stereotypes. It's more likely someone believes Jews tend to be "good" with money, or Asians tend to be more intelligent than the average person. Such beliefs can easily accommodate for the fact that some percentage of Jews will spend recklessly, and some Asians are less intelligent than the vast majority of people.

Innateness is at the center of discussions on racism. A liberal can believe Asians tend to score higher on IQ tests because of upbringing. There are plenty of left-wing professors who are on the look out for cheating from Chinese international students.

 

[Beerina]

A lot of that reads to me as muddying the waters, or self-serving idiosyncratic re-definition.

Racism: Discriminating against, or holding negative or stereotyped beliefs about, a particular individual or group based on their ethnic heritage.

Anything beyond that, for all practical purposes, is hair-splitting and not particularly useful for the vast majority of discussion.

The racism=prejudice+power, aka the racism+, definition is also not especially useful except in a self-serving way.

As with follow the money, follow the use. The use is the destruction of political opponents or any with the temerity to support them.

Why in god's name does an (expansive) definition of racism even exist? In a world of free speech and people changing their minds, social ostracism, indeed scorched earth executions, has no place.

What is the point? A definition where one can lambaste someone with a clear conscience?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The admissions folks at Harvard know that these kids are demonstrably superior when it comes to the best quantitative predictors of academic performance, and they implemented a squishy subjective method in order to arbitrarily lower their likelihood of admission. Racism? I’d say obviously so.

Well extra curricular activities are just a way for the elites to make it seem like they earned their place. Like how youth sports are no longer as prominent in poor and middle class families.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uneven-playing-field-middle-class-and-poor-kids-are-ditching-youth-sports/

 

[dann]

Yes and as everyone has unconcious biases at work constantly everyone is racist and by the way they define it racism loses all meaning.

No, everyone isn't a racist. An unconscious bias isn't racist unless it has to do with race. And Cain's example also isn't racist, if you think that it might be a black woman sitting alone at Starbucks. You wouldn't think that it has to be a black woman. (At least not if skepticism has taught you anything.)

Because they want racism to be a grave sin, which sure conscious bias certainly is. But viewing unconcious bias as a grave sin makes dealing with it harder, the people get defensive when you suggest they treat black people differently even when they provably do.

Unconscious (and sometimes conscious) racial bias kills people! Unconscious (and sometimes conscious) sexist bias kills people! John Oliver's video has examples of both:


Calling it a sin is ridiculous.

An example of how to deal with this was shown in John Oliver's recent Last Week Tonight. California they started weighing gauze after delivery so that doctors have a real measurement of blood loss instead of their perception of it. Because doctors likely mostly unconscious biases kill lots of black women.

Exactly! If it's deliberate, they'll just cheat the scale. If it's unconscious and they follow the procedure, it saves lives.


ETA: A misconception of race is usually racist, but if it's nothing more than a misconception, it's usually easy to get rid of: 'You're right. I'm was racially biassed. Thank you for correcting my misconception.'

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, everyone isn't a racist. An unconscious bias isn't racist unless it has to do with race. And Cain's example also isn't racist, if you think that it might be a black woman sitting alone at Starbucks. You wouldn't think that it has to be a black woman. (At least not if skepticism has taught you anything.)

And yet everyone has unconscious bias that has to do with race. A lot of these can certainly include biases against ones own race.

Calling it a sin is ridiculous.

That is exactly how people react to bringing up unconscious racial bias, as if you accused them of being an out and out white nationalist.

Exactly! If it's deliberate, they'll just cheat the scale. If it's unconscious and they follow the procedure, it saves lives.

Yes it only helps with unconscious biases, the racists who don't think they are racist.

 

[pharphis]

Shouldn't it be "subconscious bias" rather than "unconscious bias" ?

And isn't labeling something that "everyone has" as racist watering down that label?

Or do we need further qualifiers like "mostly benign" vs "pretty bad" racism?

 

[Butter!]

Wilma is likely engaged in cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning. It isn't simply a matter of being bad at probability. She is almost certainly engaging in activity far more dangerous. The reason she rejects those numbers and inflates the risk associated with race is likely a bias to think her race is superior.

What?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps racism is a spectrum, like so many things are. Betty is a little bit racist because she is subconsciously biased against Oirats, Kalmyks, and Evenks. Patrick is medium racist because he assumes Asian customers are more likely to shoplift from his ceramic moose figurine kiosk in the mall. Harriet is super duper racist because she thinks being Peruvian is both a disease and a conspiracy and spends her weekends constructing weapons for the upcoming anti-Peruvian holy war. Is racism still a bad thing? Yes. Is racism worse when it's greater in intensity and application? Also yes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Shouldn't it be "subconscious bias" rather than "unconscious bias" ?

And isn't labeling something that "everyone has" as racist watering down that label?

Or do we need further qualifiers like "mostly benign" vs "pretty bad" racism?

If you kill someone through your unconscious bias is that mostly benign or pretty bad? The actions you took and the biases you exhibited are in the grouping that would be called mostly benign but you just happen to be making life or death decisions.

And that is the point a lot of the worst effects of racism are by people who would be aghast to think that people would see them as racist. But they don't ask themselves "Hmm if I saw a white guy in khakis do X, would I call the cops, is the behavior suspicious or am I finding them suspicious because maybe I find black people a bit suspicious in general?"

That is the problem the same exact thing that you might call "mostly benign" in many situations can seriously impact or kill people in other situations.

So someone finds black people less credible than white people, racist sure but not a big deal, until they are making health care decisions for people and decides that the black person is complaining of pain to get drugs while you would give them out to a white person and blacks don't really feel pain as badly anyway.

As for unconscious vs subconscious bias, that is the standard language coming from psychology so I don't know why they chose that.

 

[luchog]

As with follow the money, follow the use. The use is the destruction of political opponents or any with the temerity to support them.

Why in god's name does an (expansive) definition of racism even exist? In a world of free speech and people changing their minds, social ostracism, indeed scorched earth executions, has no place.

What is the point? A definition where one can lambaste someone with a clear conscience?

Funny how the only complaints I ever hear about that come from conservatives. You know, the types most likely to be racist. Along with the concomitant hyperbolic hand-wringing about the end of civilization and people being executed for thoughtcrimes (sounds like projection to me) if they're not allowed to express every negative opinion of any group unlike them without fear of consequences for doing so.

 

[dann]

And yet everyone has unconscious bias that has to do with race. A lot of these can certainly include biases against ones own race.

That is exactly how people react to bringing up unconscious racial bias, as if you accused them of being an out and out white nationalist.

Yes it only helps with unconscious biases, the racists who don't think they are racist.

I don't think that "everyone has unconscious bias that has to do with race," but apart from that I think that we basically agree on the distinction between racist hardliners and ... I'll call them benign racists for lack of a better word.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think that "everyone has unconscious bias that has to do with race," but apart from that I think that we basically agree on the distinction between racist hardliners and ... I'll call them benign racists for lack of a better word.

Then you would be surprised by the actual studies. Who are you claiming has no unconscious bias with race?

Everyone has biases shaped by their experience, those will always come out in ways unless carefully controlled for. So race certainly is a part of it, though I guess with regard to specific races being unable to differentiate say someone Thai from Korean would limit ones racial biases with regard to differences between them. So how someone conceptualizes race would impact it to a degree.

 

[smartcooky]

What?

Well, I presume he has to be talking about Fred Flintstone's wife.