Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Amazer]

Absent a reason, I tend to avoid offending people or otherwise bothering them if possible. And a lack of conscious racist intent doesn't negate otherwise racist language or actions - as the post Crommunist made above says, most racism is accidental, people whose experiences don't make them realize the racial implications in certain situations.

Sure, I too try to avoid offending people. And I'm open to the idea of accidental racism (having seen it happen with others and myself).

What I was really trying to get at though was, what if you have someone who claims offense (and racism) where none exists. Do you indulge them? Or do you correct them?

 

[qwints]

So you don't agree with attempting to invalidate someone's experiences, but do you agree with calling someone a "chill girl" or not?

I don't think I've used the term, and I haven't really thought about it. There was a discussion of it on atheismplus last year. I don't have a problem with criticizing someone for defending/dismissing sexist behavior. I do have a problem with someone dismissing what a woman as saying because they think she's just saying it to seek male approval.

From a brief google search, it doesn't seem to have the impact of "Uncle Tom" but I could be wrong. I see the analogy.

I find it very interesting that individuals who are claiming mistreatment by others are very quick to label and disparage people.

I haven't noticed you criticizing people for the name calling towards atheismplus posters in this thread, but I might have missed it.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Well it doesn't have the impact because it's A. been around for all of 5 minutes and 2. is only used by a handful of people.

 

[Quinn]

I suspect if Quinn (to use a black poster here at random) called a black A+er an Uncle Tom he would be immediately banned, among even less civil reactions.

While your point is valid, I'm afraid you'll have to pick another poster to use as your example, as I am a person of whiteness. My avatar is a South-Parkesque rendition of James Booker^WP, a musician I admire greatly.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Huh, I could have sworn I saw you say that you were black. How terribly racist of me.

 

[qwints]

What I was really trying to get at though was, what if you have someone who claims offense (and racism) where none exists. Do you indulge them? Or do you correct them?

If I believed they were making it up, I'd probably ignore/avoid them in the future. Why get involved with someone who's just looking for a fight?

I'll ask a question I asked earlier. What does it look like for no racism to exist? In other words, why do you get to definitively say that there's no racist implications to a situation, and that someone who disagrees is wrong? To anticipate one reply, evidence that a behavior isn't solely targeted at one race doesn't mean that behavior doesn't have racist implications. There are a lot of stories about the differences between police encounters for black Americans and white Americans. See e.g. "The Place Where We All Can't Just Get Along";"Black Men Less Likely to Run in White Neighborhoods"

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I would say that anyone who assumes that you said "It's getting dark" because two black guys came in despite the fact that it really is getting dark outside due to the sun going down, they are wrong that there is a racist implication to anyone who isn't either A. Looking for one or B. Insane.


Note that if you are saying that at 9 AM then it's likely a racial comment. If you're saying it at 9PM (assuming it isn't already dark or bright sunshine outside) then I can't imagine why anyone would assume it was racially motivated.

 

[gentlehorse]

You did a great job of summarizing in this post Kevin. Kudos!

Agreed.

Yet as you acknowledge you keep popping in with this same message. What was it Al said about repeating the same action and expecting different results?

You need to run his posts through your translator. The one you quoted translates to: You people aren't as smart as I. A common theme-- (Countdown to wall-o-text--)

I agree A+ has become irrelevant. They average about 5 users online, lol. But I think this thread serves a worthy purpose in examining their thinking, and highlighting the most egregious bits as a cautionary tale.

Indeed.

 

[colander]

I would say that anyone who assumes that you said "It's getting dark" because two black guys came in despite the fact that it really is getting dark outside due to the sun going down, they are wrong that there is a racist implication to anyone who isn't either A. Looking for one or B. Insane.

Note that if you are saying that at 9 AM then it's likely a racial comment. If you're saying it at 9PM (assuming it isn't already dark or bright sunshine outside) then I can't imagine why anyone would assume it was racially motivated.

Honestly, though, it might have been. "Getting dark" is definitely sometimes used as a racist codephrase. It seems to be particularly common in the American South. (See also: "Canadians".)

If I overheard such a comment made in a certain tone of voice, and it coincided with some black people arriving, I don't think it would be all that crazy to read something into it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, are you saying I'm making much larger claims than I'm defending? If so, could you give an example? My goal here isn't to make and defend broad claims, but to try and increase mutual understanding of our positions given some of the vitriol going back and forth.

I suppose that depends on whether you are:
A) Defending the dominant doctrine of the A+ forums.
B) Just hanging around posting your own views which are unrelated to the dominant A+ views.
C) Jumping back and forth as it suits you.

Now B would be completely off-topic, because this thread is about A+/FTB, and in any case I've got no particular interest in your personal views as such. So I assumed you were doing A.

So going with that assumption, that exact pattern of argument seems to be standard for A+. They will take a mile, and when challenged defend an inch.

They'll abuse or muzzle anyone who disagrees with the dominant doctrine, and then defend it by saying "shouldn't victims have a safe space to discuss things?". Maybe they should, but even if they do that doesn't get you to the conclusion that all dissenting views must be stamped out.

They'll demand that anyone who doesn't identify as black/trans/gay/mentally ill ritually prostrate themselves before expressing any opinion on related matters, if they express an opinion at all, and then defend it by saying "Isn't it probable you have some tiny bit of unconscious bias?". Maybe it's probable, but even if it is it doesn't get you to the conclusion that all views from people who don't identify as [victim class] are wrong and should be silenced.

Listen to all of them, realizing that they no one gets to define a particular group. If the message is that some members of a group are bothered and some aren't, act accordingly.

Hang on, don't the A+ mods constantly act is if they get to define the views of, well, everyone? Whether you are black, white, male, female, a rape victim, mentally ill, gay, straight, it doesn't matter, everyone is allotted a stereotypical view and if anyone tries to break out of their stereotype, if a white man tries to say they aren't a racist and a sexist, or a rape victim says they aren't traumatised to their core for life, then the mods attack or erase that view promptly.

 

[Skiltch]

That's an excellent way of putting it.

When I offend you, I'm a horrible, slimy, hateful, unrepentant, sexist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic scumbag who triggers all your innermost horrors and makes you sick to your stomach.

When you offend me you're "punching up", you're making me experience the alienation I inflict on others, you're raising my consciousness, you're expressing your lived subjective experience, you're defending yourself against microaggressions, you're asserting the simple right of all people to live in a world where everyone is a special snowflake and you are heroically shining your personal sunshine down on the whole planet.

Yep, this.

You can have an environment where people take extra care not to offend each other. Or you can have an environment like the stereotypical depiction of 4-chan in which you're supposed to have a thick skin and you can flame others to your heart's content. But it is dishonest and disingenuous to accuse others of 'the tone argument' and 'policing emotions' and 'auditing responses' and 'dismissing lived experiences' when they protest your flames, and then protest the insults of others by calling them offensive or triggering or whatnot. If it's okay for you to offend others, it's okay for others to offend you.

 

[AlBell]

You couldn't be more wrong, it's part of the reality of the situation. Someone's internal state is part of reality.

Not of objective reality.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not of objective reality.

It's objectively true that in their (possibly demented) brain there is a very real set of nerves and chemicals and electrical charges and whatnot which underly their (possibly demented) view of reality.

So in that sense if I think I'm Jesus Christ and Napoleon and also nonexistent, and that President Obama's haircut is moral justification for me to shoot up a pre-school, then that brain state is part of "the reality of the situation".

It might even be true that all else being completely equal it might be polite to pretend that my demented views are reasonable or valid, at least for long enough to talk me down off a clock tower.

However this does not get you to the conclusion that I'm right that I ought to shoot people, or that only mentally ill people are allowed to criticise me, or that I'm morally entitled to call a forum a critical thinking forum while also maintaining it as a "safe space" for my delusions.

 

[Kochanski]

Hey, check this out: http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?bt=9408 looks like blockbot is purchasing twitter followers.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Honestly, though, it might have been. "Getting dark" is definitely sometimes used as a racist codephrase. It seems to be particularly common in the American South. (See also: "Canadians".)

If I overheard such a comment made in a certain tone of voice, and it coincided with some black people arriving, I don't think it would be all that crazy to read something into it.

Well, I overheard it. Why not ask me? This was a friend of mine. The girl who made the comment meant absolutely nothing other than that we generally waited until after dark to head over to Boxer's because the happy hour crowd there was a bit young and the place got overcrowded. Period.

There are lots of terms for brown or black or darker or lighter that have myriad legitimate uses. I've heard racists use all sorts of things as dog whistle terminology. The link you posted to is just such a feeble example. But it's not common and it's not used in civil discourse, and it's certainly not used in a group of mixed-race friends who now each other fairly well. Should we all eschew Hershey's products (which I do because their cocoa is pretty crappy, frankly) because Jim Bob Redneck thought it was funny to refer to D.C. as Hersheyville.... 70% chocolate and 30% nuts, hyuk hyuk!

And I know the tone you're speaking of and know the wording that would've been used. Try on: "Let's get going, guys. It's getting dark in here." Now there's a statement, I'd stop and pause and stare at the speaker for making and that's the way it's normally used as "clever" racism. But the comment made on the evening in question was discussed in detail because a few of us had gotten fed up with the guy's constant searching for things to get offended by.

And in this case, "intent" was everything. He wasn't saying that she inadvertently used a term that resonates negatively with black people. He was calling her out for making a racist dig. He was wrong.

Asking to touch a black person's hair is insensitive and stupid. It MIGHT ALSO be racist. But that's the point a number of us are trying to make. If in any instance it is racist, then call out that instance but don't assume that the behavior of every person who's boorish is automatically racist. Fight the fight that needs to be fought.

 

[Quinn]

Huh, I could have sworn I saw you say that you were black. How terribly racist of me.

No worries, you're not the first.

 

[Amazer]

If I believed they were making it up, I'd probably ignore/avoid them in the future. Why get involved with someone who's just looking for a fight?

Personally, I would start the dialogue and try to determine what their intent is. Just as I would when I see a someone being directly racist.

I'll ask a question I asked earlier. What does it look like for no racism to exist?

I don't know. Unfortunately racism is still widely in play, even if it's not quite as blatant and open as it used to be. It

In other words, why do you get to definitively say that there's no racist implications to a situation, and that someone who disagrees is wrong? To anticipate one reply, evidence that a behavior isn't solely targeted at one race doesn't mean that behavior doesn't have racist implications. There are a lot of stories about the differences between police encounters for black Americans and white Americans. See e.g. "The Place Where We All Can't Just Get Along";"Black Men Less Likely to Run in White Neighborhoods"

I don't think that anyone should be the sole arbiter whether something is racist or not. If there is however a broad consensus, arrived at by a diverse group of people, then I think it's possible to determine whether something is or isn't racist.

 

[colander]

Asking to touch a black person's hair is insensitive and stupid. It MIGHT ALSO be racist. But that's the point a number of us are trying to make. If in any instance it is racist, then call out that instance but don't assume that the behavior of every person who's boorish is automatically racist. Fight the fight that needs to be fought.

It's a boorish, rude behavior that highlights a characteristically black physical feature as so much of an exotic novelty that it calls out to be felt up like a textured swatch in a book of fabric samples.

If people making this request haven't given enough thought to their creepy and imposing personal mannerisms to realize that this one may be a particularly inconsiderate request to subject a black person to, then I guess they might get an earful about it from a black person at some point. Hopefully, that will allow them to learn a new and useful fact about how to interact with other human beings in ways that are not rude and annoying. Why am I supposed to be upset if that happens?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's a boorish, rude behavior that highlights a characteristically black physical feature as so much of an exotic novelty that it calls out to be felt up like a textured fabric swatch in a book of carpet samples. If people making this request haven't given enough thought to their creepy, imposing personal mannerisms to realize that this one may be a particularly inconsiderate request to subject a black person to, then I guess they might get an earful about it from a black person at some point. Why am I supposed to be upset if that happens?

Do you think you should be upset if over-sensitive people make factually false claims of racism, thus cheapening the accusation and giving ammunition to actual racists?

 

[squealpiggy]

How intriguing! Please elaborate on the distinction between wealth and class that explains why you think that it is probably not racism that causes employers to give less consideration to even wealthy job applicants who possess stereotypically black names. Thanks in advance.

Well that was rather sarcastic.

Alright then: The Greg/Emily study does in fact study prejudice. What it doesn't do is control for class prejudice adequately meaning that the conclusion that people are racist is unjustified.

The controls for class the authors used is to provide addresses from a mixture of wealthy and poor areas. This assumes that when reading a resume prospective employers are going to pay attention to the whole thing including the address. But the whole point of the study is predicated on the fact that employers will ignore the identical qualifications and experience of the applicant and make a prejudicial decision on the suitability of the applicant based disproportionately on their name. So what makes the study authors assume that an employer who will ignore factors like education levels, experience and schooling are going to change their mind when the address is 104 Richguy Blvd, Poshville?

A lack of stereotypically lower class white names in the samples means that they are only testing for prejudice against social class, not for prejudice against race.

Social class is not the same as wealth. As an example somebody working in the construction industry in an unskilled or semi-skilled position is likely to be paid more money than a person working as an office clerk. Construction pays well. But a construction worker is always considered to be a lower class profession and office work is always considered to be middle class. Likewise a middle manager is a middle class role yet a contractor operating their own business but with few employees may make many times the manager's salary and still be considered to be of a lower social class.

Is it stereotypically black, or stereotypically lower-class black? How would stereotypically lower-class white names fare vs. stereotypically upper-class white? And in what context? How about lower-class black vs. lower-class white? Would an employer be more likely to call a Bubba over a Jamaal?

Thank you yes, this is precisely what I mean and precisely the criticism I have of the Emily/Greg study.