Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Squeegee, aren't feelings part of what reality is actually like?

They're a part of people's subjective experience of reality, certainly. And that's true whether the feelings are that the world is unreasonably distrustful of you because you're black, or that the world is unreasonably unsafe for you because it's full of black people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, definitely premature, though I wouldn't really blame him for making the assumption.

Nobody's talking about blaming anybody. I'm talking about the potential difference between someone's report of reality and reality itself.

I will generally take someone's word for what they experienced, unless I've got good reason not to.

Whereas I will generally believe that they are reporting things accurately as they perceived them to be, however I'm always mindful of the fact that everybody's perception of the world is inherently flawed and that, as a species, we confabulate. And, as such, I tend to trust reports of how things made people feel, but am less trustful about reports accurately representing events as they occurred.

But then, I suppose, I count "knowing what I know about biology and psychology" as being "good reason not to" take someone's word as being 100% accurate.

 

[luchog]

Nobody's talking about blaming anybody. I'm talking about the potential difference between someone's report of reality and reality itself.

What is known as the Rashomon Effect

Whereas I will generally believe that they are reporting things accurately as they perceived them to be, however I'm always mindful of the fact that everybody's perception of the world is inherently flawed and that, as a species, we confabulate. And, as such, I tend to trust reports of how things made people feel, but am less trustful about reports accurately representing events as they occurred.

But then, I suppose, I count "knowing what I know about biology and psychology" as being "good reason not to" take someone's word as being 100% accurate.

Most people have a highly exaggerated view of the accuracy of human observation and memory. This is partly cultural, reinforced by the emphasis on eyewitness accounts in popular media, and partly people having difficulty recognizing the limitations their own memories. However, it's well-established in scientific literature that human observation and memory is one of the least reliable sources of information (despite the portrayal of eyewitness testimony in police procedural television programs).

Even in the customer service and sales industries, those limits are recognized and understood. There's a common saying that you should always trust the customer when they tell you how they feel, but never trust the customer when they tell you what they see.

I've personally seen too many incidents where racism has been claimed, and where it not only didn't exist, but could not possibly exist (eg. mechanical drawings, first-come first-serve scheduling). When working tech support, I've even had people on the phone accuse me of racism because I could not instantly resolve a network outage in their area.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

As applied to the use of the word "niggardly," if a white person uses the word with no ill intent and a black person is offended, all I'm saying is that the offense really exists regardless of the speakers intent. I'm labeling that offense a racist effect, which may b confusing the situation.

Here's why what you are doing is highly problematic:

The kind of racism we should care about and try to fight against is unfair discrimination against people based on qualities which are both irrelevant and no fault of their own. If people are getting treated unjustly because of their racial or cultural background that is morally wrong and we ought to do something about it.

The reasons why we should oppose sexism, anti-homosexual attitudes and so forth are the same.

If you reduce "racism" to non-white people getting offended without any proper justification, why should we care about it? Why should we oppose racism? In your broadened sense, racism is just silly people getting offended over nothing. That's not a social justice problem, it's an oversensitivity problem.

This SJW mythologising seems to be driven by some sort of urge to redefine the world so that absolutely everyone who isn't a SJW is racist all the time no matter what, and everyone who is ever offended (about proper SJW topics, naturally) is right to be offended and cannot be questioned. However it's fundamentally a big equivocation game, where you redefine a powerful word ("racism") so that it no longer means anything, and then try to use it as if it still meant something.

Strictly speaking the correct response to you using your redefined term "racism" should be something like "you have shown that X is racist, you just haven't shown why we should care about the fact that X is racist". Because while racism in the ordinary sense is something which we need to be concerned about automatically, SJW-racism is something which might or might not just be a silly person upsetting themselves over nothing.

Personally I very strongly favour preserving the power and usefulness of the term "racism" by only using it to refer to actual racism, and opposing SJW efforts to water down the definition into meaninglessness in search of cheap rhetorical points on the internet.

 

[squealpiggy]

T
Explain this phrase further. What does it mean/look like for no racism to occur?

The same as it looks when no homophobia occurs.

 

[qwints]

Luchog, are you talking about one particular study or the test as a whole? I think using IATs as a racist detector would be a bad idea for the reasons you set out, but I also think it reveals useful data in the aggregate (i.e. generalities.)

For a scholarly treatment of the big picture of IAT, here's a meta-analysis.

 

[Quinn]

Personally I very strongly favour preserving the power and usefulness of the term "racism" by only using it to refer to actual racism, and opposing SJW efforts to water down the definition into meaninglessness in search of cheap rhetorical points on the internet.

Well said. It's not unlike preserving the power and usefulness of the term "rape" by reserving it to mean sex with a non-consenting person, rather than sex with your live-in girlfriend when she enthusiastically jumps you after she's had three beers and you haven't.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I really haven't tried to categorize all the elements of this discussion, which has been going around in circle for years, but if I can make myself a bit lucid this early in the a.m. over here, I'll try.

I don't think anyone has any trouble identifying the group that Kevin's speaking of and about which I also have the greatest concern. Those persons and institutions which are blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic in their daily activities, words, thoughts.

And on the other end of my spectrum I don't have any trouble identifying the paranoid victims who overdo their side of it. e.g. Woody Allen's famous bit about "Jew eat yet?" (Which he perceived someone as saying instead of "Did you eat yet?") And a good friend of mine from NYC who was black and could find fault in any line at any time uttered by any person (who wasn't black). I remember sitting in a coffee shop and having to listen to him go off on someone because they commented at around 6 pm that we could head over to whatever pub we were going to, as it's getting darker. As the person was saying this, a couple of black customers had come through the door to the coffee shop. It was someone we knew and her brother, as it turned out. But my friend took the original comment to be about the fact that there were three blacks and called her a racist... for mentioning that dusk was settling and it was getting darker outside,... and we famously didn't like to hit the pub until happy hour was over and the early "evening crowd" was coming in.

While I've heard extreme SJWs take the position that the "Jew eat yet?" and "getting darker" are legitimate, I think they're absurd and I believe most thinking people will concur. And very few people are going to take someone seriously when they complain about the serious problem that the doorman at Chez Fou Fou actually gives preference to straight couples or that the Maitre D' always seats his black customers behind a pillar next to the busboy service area.... if that person has just gone on a fifteen minute tirade about someone using the phrase, "well, it was certainly a black day in our history" because, well, black /= bad.

It's the two "middle" groups I think we could all do something about. (I think we all SHOULD do something about the first group - the active bigots. But that's because I'm part of a group of people who've been fighting that for quite some time.)

In the middle we have the people who CANNOT see and the people who WILL NOT see. The cannot sees are exemplified by the discussions we've had of Golliwogs and Little Black/Brave Sambo and Blackface/Minstrels and the color N-word Brown. These people grew up with those terms and likely never met or knew a person of color in their lives. To them, those are harmless words and they can't understand how a black person could be offended by a sofa with a label on it that says that it is Colour: ****** Brown. That group also includes people like my buddy Jamie from rural Indiana. "Jew him down" was a perfectly apt expression to him. And he was a liberal hippie! But he'd never, in his entire life, met a Jew and it was like using "the Midas touch", a figure out of mythology. I think those people can be turned. I think that the fact that they cannot relate to the situation is just a blind spot and I've seen many people, both here and ITRW change their opinion to what the right wing pundits call "politically correct".

And then we have the people who WILL NOT see. They're really, IMHO, closeted members of the lead group.... bigots. These are the folks who generally espouse "Hey, they call each other ****** all the time. Why can't I use it. Free speech!" Is it just a coincidence that these people also will spend fourteen hours defending Ron Paul allowing his racist buddy to use his newsletter to spew filth, or will use the inner city ghettos as an example of how blacks also prefer to "stay with their own" (and in one thread, Native "Reservations"!!!). ETA: And what I think we can do about this group is to call them on it as often as possible.

Oh, and I don't believe in the fifth group around these parts - the uber skeptics who will examine every nuance of, say Trayvon/Zimmerman and say, "Well, according to the law, he's innocent. So be it. I am pure logic and critical thinking and have no feelings or other thoughts on the matter." I simply don't believe they're real, those positions.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Surely this isn't specific to racism, gender or anything else. Offence is offence. Upset is upset. Sometimes it's upset over something real, sometimes it's upset over something imagined, sometimes it's upset that doesn't fit easily into either category. Presumably the upskirt guy from several threads and many thousands of posts was hurt and upset?

One worry I have about this is that it feels a little like a way of saying that if something feels like it happened, then it did. Somehow it doesn't just shift the burden of proof, but removes the need for proof entirely. If you feel like something racist happened, then it did. If you feel you were sexually harassed, then you were. If you feel like your parents are unreasonable, then they are.

Wanted to object to qwints' post, but you pretty much said what I had in mind, and much more eloquently at that.

Nevertheless..

The listener's perception is real, regardless of the speaker's intent. Whether it's someone who's using a word that predates the slur it sounds like or someone who mentions an offensive stereotype they're unaware of doesn't change the listener's experience. It should inform the response, as inadvertent offense is a different kind of thing than intentional offense, but the offense is still real and still justified.

I bolded the words that I do not understand in this context.

1. Real as opposed to imaginary? In what way is the perception real, if the perceived situational information received is inadequate or simply mistaken (deliveryman mistakenly perceived malicious intent)? I'd argue the listener is indeed imagining the offense, when in fact no-one was offending him. Or are you saying that the deliveryman is correctly perceiving that 'use the backdoor' remark wasn't racially charged, but chose to take offense anyway, because the situation allowed/demanded it? I'm a bit confused. This seems to veer into the absurd dimension shuttlt described: feelings beget reality.

Or are you saying that it's not only people who can be offensive, but situations. How would a racist situation come about with no active agency involved but the listener?

Surely the experience is real, just as real as hallucinations, but the perception is flawed. You're not perceiving reality as it is. Just because you feel you're burning inside a cosmic elephant doesn't make it so. Just because you feel offence and perceive racism doesn't make the racism 'real', even if you really, really feel offended. The offence you feel is real, sure.

2. In what way is it justified? "I feel offended, hence I'm justified in feeling offended"?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well said. It's not unlike preserving the power and usefulness of the term "rape" by reserving it to mean sex with a non-consenting person, rather than sex with your live-in girlfriend when she enthusiastically jumps you after she's had three beers and you haven't.

That's a pretty good parallel.

I think I might have said this before, but I find it fascinating that while it is completely false in terms of actual law to say that it's rape to have sex with your girlfriend when she has had three beers, the myth that the law says this is a wildly popular myth amongst the radical feminists and the radical misogynists. Both extremes of gender identity politics love to believe this story. Humans are amazing.

However if it were true this myth would lead to the awkward outcome that the rational response to someone saying "I was raped!" would be to say "I believe you, but I need more details in order to know whether I should care. After all, maybe you just had consensual sex with a long-term partner after a few beers".

I'd rather keep the word "rape" for referring to things we should care about.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Personally I very strongly favour preserving the power and usefulness of the term "racism" by only using it to refer to actual racism, and opposing SJW efforts to water down the definition into meaninglessness in search of cheap rhetorical points on the internet.

However if it were true this myth would lead to the awkward outcome that the rational response to someone saying "I was raped!" would be to say "I believe you, but I need more details in order to know whether I should care. After all, maybe you just had consensual sex with a long-term partner after a few beers".

I'd rather keep the word "rape" for referring to things we should care about.

Excellent point.

 

[Skiltch]

Quick news update: the A+ skepticon indiegogo fundraiser fell $60 short, raising just $640 with only 8 backers (and $250 of that from one single backer). Indiegogo lets you keep the money anyway, though, so someone's still getting $640. No word yet on whether anyone's going to be sent to Skepticon with it.

 

[bedlin88]

But instead of using it as a useful illustrative construct, a lot of SJ advocates have (1) turned it into a binary state (you either have the privilege, in which case shut up because your opinion can't possibly be relevant, or you don't, in which case all non-privileged people must defer to you period); and (2) despite denouncing "oppression olympics," they do exactly this. So whenever there is a disagreement about anything, instead of considering who might actually be most knowledgeable or have the most life experience, they start tallying up privileges and compete for who is least privileged and thus most entitled to speak.

I may not agree with you on everything but this right here is spot on. I think this is why a lot of folks around have a big issue with A+/FTB, and probably a big part of why this particular thread got started in the first place.

 

[Skiltch]

On a related note from yesterday:

I saw this post by Ceepolk in a thread about adding Social Justice concerns to one's art. Ceepolk's advice:

With a lot of work and a lot of awareness and a lot of understanding, and know that you will **** it up anyway.

I would suggest that you join tumblr and start a tumblr and use it for reblog without comment purposes, and then start following people who are black, concentrate on women, and read it. regularly. and don't comment on anything you read, and for the love of bob don't tell anyone you're studying them. and if you find after a week that you're still doing it to study them, step away from the tumblr and don't go back for a month, and don't write that character you're thinking you ought to write because of whatever reason you have, because you can't do this thing if you can't see us as people.

I also think that you should sit yourself down and read Racefail '09 from the beginning. Yes, the whole damn thing. And Mammothfail as well.

This post symbolizes so much of what is wrong with A+:

1. Completely incoherent advice. "You want to write WOC? Read these tumblrs. But don't say anything or actually engage in any way. And, actually, that's spying so don't read those tumblrs. And don't try again for a month for some reason. And you're probably doing it with bad intentions, which are now magic unlike all those previous times. In fact, just don't write WOC at all."

2. Uselessly vague advice, probably attributable to 'lacking spoons.' "Read all of Racefail?" Racefail was huge and covered a vast multitude of topics, ranging from whether or not 'nithing' is a slur to whether or not Jews are 'other' in today's society to 'how allies can sponsor a 'POC issue' of a magazine without it being offensive.' Saying 'the answer's in Racefail' doesn't really give you much of a place to start. It adds nothing to the conversation.

3. Off-topic, and therefore irrelevant, advice. Mammothfail has nothing to do with any of this. That was when Patricia Wrede wrote a book set in AU America where dinosaurs still roamed around the interior, and no one made it over the landbridge from Russia to settle in America, so there were no Native Americans. This was condemned as erasure by some SJ Advocates and SJWs. (It didn't last long online, probably because Wrede was smart and didn't really make a huge public response to it, at least that I recall). That has nothing to do with 'I want to include a person with identity X, how can I get it right?' Again, this just seems lazy, like Ceepolk has a stock 'I'm an ally and want to help' response.

4. Assumption that tumblr is the only means for interaction or learning anything. What about reading actual books? "Writing the Other" by Nisi Shawl is a great resource for precisely this issue. Read books about writing, and particularly writing people that aren't like you. Read books by, and about, the identity you want to write about. Strike up conversations with members of the group on whatever forum you fancy. Listen to music, eat food, and in general experience what you can so you get a better idea of what you're doing. Read other books in your genre that have done the same thing, see what they got right and wrong, and plan accordingly. There's so much more that could be said here, but Ceepolk just says, "Yeah, tumblr's got what you need, except you're too privileged and terrible to use it."

5. Assumption that failure is guaranteed and so the writer shouldn't even bother. Because deliberately excluding POC from your writing/art for fear that you won't get things perfect is definitely the anti-racist thing to do!

6. Finally, I get the impression that Ceepolk's comment is more designed to punish the author for having the temerity to try writing with a diverse cast as opposed to actual help. Lack of diversity in art is a big issue in various SJ communities currently. If Ceepolk actually cared about fighting that kind of problem, one would think she would want another person who is trying to do something to succeed. But she'd rather tear them down than help them make progress towards her ostensible goals of greater representation and equality.

 

[qwints]

There's a common saying that you should always trust the customer when they tell you how they feel, but never trust the customer when they tell you what they see.

The former is what I'm getting at. The feelings of marginalization are real even if they stem from an inaccurate appraisal of another's motives.

people getting treated unjustly because of their racial or cultural background = actual racism

Is that an accurate depiction of your position?

Well said. It's not unlike preserving the power and usefulness of the term "rape" by reserving it to mean sex with a non-consenting person, rather than sex with your live-in girlfriend when she enthusiastically jumps you after she's had three beers and you haven't.

Do you enjoy fighting straw men? I also dislike those silly teetotalers who believe a single drop of alcohol vitiates consent.

@Foolmewunz, I like your description and think it's reasonable in what it covers. I think it excludes subtle but meaningful discrimination that shows up in disparate outcomes. Where does the difference in call backs of names from different cultures fit it? Or disparate sentencing for defendants of different races?

In what way is the perception real,

Two of your possibilities - situations without agency and the experience itself. I'd define the former as situations without racial intent. One aspect of privilege is the ability to say or do things with racial implications without realizing it. Consider the widely discussed phenomenon of white people asking to touch black people's hair.

 

[Amazer]

The former is what I'm getting at. The feelings of marginalization are real even if they stem from an inaccurate appraisal of another's motives.

To me it sounds like the party who feels marginalized in this case is actually the one who is engaging in a form of racism.

 

[qwints]

Is this the "thinking a white person is racist is the real racism" argument?

See "Black racism is not a mirror image of white racism"

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Is that an accurate depiction of your position?

Please don't make stuff up and then put it in quote tags as if I wrote it. If you are making things up and attributing them to me, then make it clear to the reader that you are doing so. Even if it is very roughly accurate it's still not okay.

What I actually wrote is an accurate depiction of my position. What you wrote is significantly different. If you need to distort what I said in order to make it into something easier to disagree with then that indicates to me that your arguments are not honestly engaging with mine.

 

[Quinn]

Well said. It's not unlike preserving the power and usefulness of the term "rape" by reserving it to mean sex with a non-consenting person, rather than sex with your live-in girlfriend when she enthusiastically jumps you after she's had three beers and you haven't.

Do you enjoy fighting straw men?

Not at all. With the caveat that I'm relying on my memory, I'm reasonably sure that I have heard that very definition of rape espoused and defended, with a presumably straight face and no discernible hint of irony, on this board in recent months. I don't recall by whom, but I will try to find it and link to it if you like. And I considered it a relevant parallel to the point Kevin Lowe was making: that taking a word that means something horrific, and watering it down to the point where it also means something trivial, is belittling to those who have lived through the horrific thing it properly describes.

 

[Amazer]

Is this the "thinking a white person is racist is the real racism" argument?

No