Again, can we move the "we need to be sensitive to those who are insensitive about other people because the people who dehumanize other people might get their feelings hurt" discussion to a different thread? This has gone on enough pages to merit its own discussion, and the thread is about the post-Donald Trump election situation as a whole.
Based on what I've read in this thread thus far (which to be honest, is what bLatch wrote; I haven't paid much attention to earlier pages so I apologize if I missed others), this seems to be an unfair characterization of what we're arguing. As far as I'm concerned, it has little to do with protecting the fragile heart of racists.
What I'm arguing is that- if you actually want to persuade someone, using charged language will probably not get you very far.
It's the same concept behind dealing with spousal disputes, or disputes in general.
Saying things that cause the other party to become defensive/put up walls is generally considered a poor argumentative technique.
So, if I bring up the example I made earlier-
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "You're racist and sexist. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
vs.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "It's not fair to say that. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
Person B can actually address Person A's argument without ever once mentioning that Person A is being racist and sexist. Those words simply add nothing to actually addressing the rationale behind Person A's racist and sexist beliefs.
Perhaps, but not necessarily to persuade the person you're debating with. In many cases, it's to persuade the people listening to or reading the debate.
You don't think Donald and Hillary were trying to change each others' minds, do you?
If you assume that your opposition is not going to be persuaded by you, why aren't you also assuming that the third-party reader doesn't have some preconceived notions that you cannot change?
The fundamental point I make still stays the same.
-It's counter-productive to use language/phrases that place others on the defensive/cause them to put up walls.
-Given that you're probably arguing against the flawed logic/understanding behind the racist/sexist/what have you belief, it's frankly unnecessary to actually ever state that they're racist/sexist/what have you anyways. Just deal with the flawed logic/understanding.
Of course you'll run into people who refuse to argue in a proper manner and refuse to give ground on anything, but that happens in pretty much all avenues of life and should generally be attributed to that person just being incredibly bull-headed more than that person being some unrepentant racist.
Heck, it's happening at my work-place right now concerning matters that have absolutely nothing to do with ethics and morality.
Some people just become unmalleable stones regarding certain issues at some point in their lives and think that they're correct and will always argue on the assumption that they're correct.
The point I wanted to make is that it's not necessary to actually flat-out state that they're racist/sexist/etc to argue with their argument.
I'm simply saying that one should apply very simple and commonly used argumentative technique-namely, don't put the other fellow on the defensive or otherwise give them an opportunity to put up walls if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them.
The point you WERE making was, "If you have any intent whatsoever to eventually persuade that person that he/she indeed is a racist", but apparently you've already given up on that.
That was actually a mistake on my part; I should have written "if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them that they're racist".
Done nitpicking?
I don't understand what you've changed here. You had been talking about how to persuade someone that they are indeed a racist. You propose to do this by never using the word "racist", but have made no attempt to explain how that works.
Perhaps, but not necessarily to persuade the person you're debating with. In many cases, it's to persuade the people listening to or reading the debate.
You don't think Donald and Hillary were trying to change each others' minds, do you?
If you assume that your opposition is not going to be persuaded by you, why aren't you also assuming that the third-party reader doesn't have some preconceived notions that you cannot change?
Mr. A: Mr. B, you're racist
=> Mr. B does not want to be characterized as racist, so he becomes defensive
Mr. A: Hey Mr. C, Mr. B is racist
=> Mr. C does not want to be characterized as racist, so he distances himself from Mr. B
Obviously a simplified version of the situation, and this may not be the case for every "Mr. C", but I hope it gets the point across.
Mr. A: Mr. B, you're racist
=> Mr. B does not want to be characterized as racist, so he becomes defensive
Mr. A: Hey Mr. C, Mr. B is racist
=> Mr. C does not want to be characterized as racist, so he distances himself from Mr. B
Obviously a simplified version of the situation, and this may not be the case for every "Mr. C", but I hope it gets the point across.
This is only expected when "Mr. C" doesn't have a well defined opinion of "Mr. B". In the case where "C" has a well defined opinion of "B" which doesn't include being a racist, then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive, because there are only two possible explanations for "A" calling "B" a racist. "A" has a fundamentally different/clashing world view than you so you are unlikely to agree on anything, or your opinion of "B" is wrong. Most people will not except this at the start of a conversation, and the point being made here is that you shouldn't start with this loaded point. You should ease them into the realization themselves, if you can't then nothing you do will help but at least you haven't picked a fight by using a loaded word.
This is only expected when "Mr. C" doesn't have a well defined opinion of "Mr. B". In the case where "C" has a well defined opinion of "B" which doesn't include being a racist, then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive, because there are only two possible explanations for "A" calling "B" a racist. "A" has a fundamentally different/clashing world view than you so you are unlikely to agree on anything, or your opinion of "B" is wrong. Most people will not except this at the start of a conversation, and the point being made here is that you shouldn't start with this loaded point. You should ease them into the realization themselves, if you can't then nothing you do will help but at least you haven't picked a fight by using a loaded word.
So now our hypothetical Mr. C is so unable to cope with opposing view points that he will shut down at the mere suggestion that his opinion of B is wrong. In other words, we cannot present to Mr. C any premise with which he disagrees, or else he will find himself on the defensive. If that's true of Mr. C, then it doesn't matter what we say - he is simply not open to having his mind changed.
This is only expected when "Mr. C" doesn't have a well defined opinion of "Mr. B". In the case where "C" has a well defined opinion of "B" which doesn't include being a racist, then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive, because there are only two possible explanations for "A" calling "B" a racist. "A" has a fundamentally different/clashing world view than you so you are unlikely to agree on anything, or your opinion of "B" is wrong. Most people will not except this at the start of a conversation, and the point being made here is that you shouldn't start with this loaded point. You should ease them into the realization themselves, if you can't then nothing you do will help but at least you haven't picked a fight by using a loaded word.
So now our hypothetical Mr. C is so unable to cope with opposing view points that he will shut down at the mere suggestion that his opinion of B is wrong.
That's a terrible strawman Tiax.
In other words, we cannot present to Mr. C any premise with which he disagrees, or else he will find himself on the defensive.
I think it's important to address that calling a person arguing racist beliefs racist is not a very productive way of addressing the claim being made regardless of the further factor of emotional conflict. When disputing a claim, it's not the opponents general attitude that's the important part- it's whether the claim itself is actually racist or based in racism.
For example, talking Donald Trump's muslim ban idea, calling Donald Trump racist does not necessarily have anything to do with the policy idea in question. The more direct argument is that the policy idea itself is discriminatory, because it's the policy idea that's in question.
Then there's the point that saying racist things doesn't necessarily make someone racist, even if a strong indicator, it's not a strict determinator.
No, that's exactly what he said. He said that Mr. C "will not [accept]" that his opinion of B is wrong. Mr. C is not even being called a racist here - there's no hint of insult or questioning of Mr. C's character. The "loaded point" that Mr. C apparently can't accept is merely that some third party might be a racist, and Mr. C doesn't think so.
I don't know what to tell you, but these do not say the same thing at all.
In the case where "C" has a well defined opinion of "B" which doesn't include being a racist, then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive, because there are only two possible explanations for "A" calling "B" a racist. "A" has a fundamentally different/clashing world view than you so you are unlikely to agree on anything, or your opinion of "B" is wrong. Most people will not except this at the start of a conversation
we cannot present to Mr. C any premise with which he disagrees, or else he will find himself on the defensive.
Especially look to this
the point being made here is that you shouldn't start with this loaded point.
I don't know what to tell you, but these do not say the same thing at all.
In the case where "C" has a well defined opinion of "B" which doesn't include being a racist, then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive, because there are only two possible explanations for "A" calling "B" a racist. "A" has a fundamentally different/clashing world view than you so you are unlikely to agree on anything, or your opinion of "B" is wrong. Most people will not except this at the start of a conversation
we cannot present to Mr. C any premise with which he disagrees, or else he will find himself on the defensive.
Especially look to this
the point being made here is that you shouldn't start with this loaded point.
Oh come on. He literally said, "then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive". You're really going to quibble over whether it's said at the start? Is your position now that you can totally say racist, as long as it's not the first thing you say? If that's not your position, then this is a red herring.
I don't know what to tell you, but these do not say the same thing at all.
In the case where "C" has a well defined opinion of "B" which doesn't include being a racist, then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive, because there are only two possible explanations for "A" calling "B" a racist. "A" has a fundamentally different/clashing world view than you so you are unlikely to agree on anything, or your opinion of "B" is wrong. Most people will not except this at the start of a conversation
we cannot present to Mr. C any premise with which he disagrees, or else he will find himself on the defensive.
Especially look to this
the point being made here is that you shouldn't start with this loaded point.
Oh come on. He literally said, "then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive". You're really going to quibble over whether it's said at the start?
Again, you are missing the point. What you said was 'we cannot present...any premise with which he disagrees'. That was never said or implied. We talking about specific ways of objecting to B.
Again, you are missing the point. What you said was 'we cannot present...any premise with which he disagrees'. That was never said or implied. We talking about specific ways of objecting to B.
He said that the thing which would put "C" on the defensive is the possibility that "your opinion of "B" is wrong." Not a specific way of objecting - just the mere idea that his opinion is wrong.
I'm shocked that you aren't getting this. It isn't that any conflicting views are met with this defensive stance it is that such a strong conflicting view is met with defense. Racist isn't just a 'your wrong' it is 'your wrong and a horrible person'. Such a strong conflict will put people on defense while slower approaches can actually yield results. I even stated how to go about this but you ignored this and instead doubled down on my first point. When debating you need to get the other person to see your side and then except it as fact, as long as you put off using the word racist until they actually see the side of the argument that makes the original thing racist then it can be used as a powerful finisher, but starting with racist is too strong of a shift and will make them reject your view without considering your side.
But yes if your opinion of a person is challenged it is more likely to put you on defense then if your opinion on a subject is challenged because people like to think they are good judges of character. Partially because it encompasses many facets while a single subject is exactly that, a single subject.
Again, you are missing the point. What you said was 'we cannot present...any premise with which he disagrees'. That was never said or implied. We talking about specific ways of objecting to B.
He said that the thing which would put "C" on the defensive is the possibility that "your opinion of "B" is wrong." Not a specific way of objecting - just the mere idea that his opinion is wrong.
'Your opinion of B' is not an unapecific opinion about B it has to do with whether B is racist ir not. The point is clearly to do with racism being an inflammatory word not with opposition itself being inflammatory.
I'm shocked that you aren't getting this. It isn't that any conflicting views are met with this defensive stance it is that such a strong conflicting view is met with defense. Racist isn't just a 'your wrong' it is 'your wrong and a horrible person'. Such a strong conflict will put people on defense while slower approaches can actually yield results. I even stated how to go about this but you ignored this and instead doubled down on my first point. When debating you need to get the other person to see your side and then except it as fact, as long as you put off using the word racist until they actually see the side of the argument that makes the original thing racist then it can be used as a powerful finisher, but starting with racist is too strong of a shift and will make them reject your view without considering your side.
But yes if your opinion of a person is challenged it is more likely to put you on defense then if your opinion on a subject is challenged because people like to think they are good judges of character. Partially because it encompasses many facets while a single subject is exactly that, a single subject.
"Some other person is a racist" is not "You're wrong and a horrible person" - it doesn't call into question your character. If someone is unwilling to be challenged on whether they have correctly judged a third party's character, then why would they be willing to be challenged on other similarly benign points? People like to think they're good judges of character, but people also like to thing they're good judges of facts. No matter what point you challenges them on, you're going to put them on the defensive. That's just how arguments work.
The effect of refusing to even say the word "racist" is that you normalize racism. Even if you manage to convince people that one specific racist view is incorrect via this pathetic whack-a-mole strategy, you've left unchallenged the underlying idea that such views represent a valid way of looking at the world. To take magickware's example, even if you convince someone that the statistics don't support their Asian driver stereotype, you've done nothing to dispel the pattern of thinking that leads one to that sort of stereotype.
The very real problem is that the word “racist” gets thrown around so much that it doesn’t mean anything anymore. So in a very real way, whether you consider something racist will depend on nothing more than to what group you belong.
1) Conscious beliefs – People who harbor hostile feelings about races other than their own, know that they do, and will admit that they do. These are the only people who fit the literal definition of racist – “the belief that one or more races are inferior or superior to others”. These are the KKK groups of the world. Even they won’t use the term “racist” for themselves, but are mostly ambivalent about it inasmuch as they’ve reconciled themselves to that belief. You can call them racist, but then they will expect to have a debate on the actual merits/demerits of racism. Something tells me that this isn't what happens most of the time you call someone racist.
2) Unconscious beliefs – People who have hostile feelings around race, but aren’t aware that it amounts to racism. These people are those who believe something along the lines that they and people like them are more worthy of jobs in the US than people that aren’t like them, and whose discontent about the economy can be directed at outgroups. Debatably just as racist in fact, but they don’t identify with the label “racist” because they reserve that for people above who are openly conscious of their racism, as above.
3) Belief as statement of identity – People who don’t harbor any such feelings about race, but identify with one of the above groups on some other terms, e.g. political party. These are the people who resent the label “racist” the most, because they are literally not racist, and they’re unaware/unsure whether the rest of the group they’ve identified with is racist. So like anyone falsely accused of something, using that label against them is a non-starter.
4) Belief as the actual opposition issues – The people who think that the #1 still poses a threat to society, and that #2 needs to be brought along. They are mostly reasonable people that generally don’t find themselves in the same room as racists, but also because of a set of further issues on top of just this one.
5) Belief as a label used by the outgroup – The people who developed and use the term “racist” as a label for things that don’t fit the literal definition of racism. If you don’t like illegal immigration from Mexico, you are “racist” (even though Mexico is a country, not a race). If you think there should be a registry for Muslims, you’re “racist” (again, Islam is a religion, not a race). It has been really easy to spot the flimsiness of the label in the Trump campaign, because most of the abhorrent ideas that he’s put forward have been on the basis of some protected class other than race. But, the label has such wide appeal among this outgroup that a lot of media outlets have even used terms like “overtly racist” to describe Trump.
The facts as I see them, the support Trump has gained from the abhorrent things he’s said come exclusively from the #2 group, those who are unwittingly using things like race (religion, national origin) as a stand-in for their actual fears about unquantified threats from the outside. They might be “racist”, but they don’t think so, and so using the label against them makes them feel like their legitimate concerns are being dismissed. It's not that you can't call a racist a racist, it's that you've taken a matter that was at issue in their mind, then turned it into the issue of racism instead.
Note specifically, here the Republican base prior to this has been centered mostly around #3. Leaders like McCain and Romney were aware enough of the vulnerability of the #2 group, and were firmly set enough in their own position to know the pitfalls and perils of policy unconsciously directed by racism.
But at no point has the #1 group ever been an actual voting bloc for the right. At no point either did Trump make any statements that seem like they could’ve come from that group, or openly courted that group. The only thing that he did regarding that group, in my memory, was tell the news anchor that he wasn’t sure who David Duke was. It’s demonstrably evident that he does know what David Duke was, so he ended up blaming it on a faulty earpiece (unlikely). He probably just wanted to assess whether it was politically prudent for him to disavow before he did so. Admittedly very troublesome, and probably evidence that he’s aware he’s courting the #2 group, but it doesn’t amount to “overt white supremacy”. What you actually have in Trump is someone with a very long track record of not wanting to be associated with David Duke, openly professes inclusion and tolerance, and who tweets how much he loves taco salad on Cinco de Mayo.
The people who have utterly discredited themselves in this election cycle have been the #5 group, who use the label “racism” for any and all things not belonging to them. I’ve heard a lot of people say that to them, this feels exactly like the 2000 election that Gore lost. To me, that makes it pretty clear then that they’re so far out of touch that they literally see no difference between 1, 2 and 3, above. Bush, McCain, Romney, so forth, are on the same level as the KKK. That the only reason someone would have to be against unisex bathrooms, for example, is because have confederate flag placemats and would gladly own slaves if they had the opportunity. There are really an alarming number of people who think and act this way.
Rightfully so, they’re not being listened to anymore. The Democrats have now failed specifically for their reliance on this group to mount a national election. A great number of them prefer candidates who actually hold positions on the left (such as Sanders with his economic policy), over candidates like Hillary who are hawkish on foreign policy and hold centrist economic views (Greenspan), but who happen to have learned the language of “racism” as a label (glass ceiling, so on). In the end, people just really didn’t care enough about what bathrooms people are using against the backdrop of a decade long economic recession.
Perhaps, but not necessarily to persuade the person you're debating with. In many cases, it's to persuade the people listening to or reading the debate.
You don't think Donald and Hillary were trying to change each others' minds, do you?
If you assume that your opposition is not going to be persuaded by you, why aren't you also assuming that the third-party reader doesn't have some preconceived notions that you cannot change?
Mr. A: Mr. B, you're racist
=> Mr. B does not want to be characterized as racist, so he becomes defensive
Mr. A: Hey Mr. C, Mr. B is racist
=> Mr. C does not want to be characterized as racist, so he distances himself from Mr. B
Obviously a simplified version of the situation, and this may not be the case for every "Mr. C", but I hope it gets the point across.
So Mr.A strategy is to segregate Mr.B and deny him any opportunity to even take part in the debate ? The debate regarding the direction of the society he/she is part of (just like Mr.A and Mr.C)...
I'm pretty sure Mr.C is wrong but it doesn't change the fact that we stand in quicksand if we don't live up to our own values.
@Jusstice: you missed #6: racism as a description of structural issues in society
Society consists of individuals acting according to their beliefs and perceptions. There is no external entity "society" that can be racist irrespective of the individual. "Structural issues in society" is professor-speak for "white people still have problems with hiring black people", and it would be wise not to reify it into anything grander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
very interesting conversation. I would have to say, imo, that the #2 unconscious belief people may very well be the most dangerous of all people, because they are afforded the ability, or almost right, to have no responsibility for their actions, because: well I didn't know it was racist. These are exactly the people who NEED to be told when they are behaving in a racist manner, but I have to say, calling them racist directly will likely get you no where. Calling out specific belief's or statements as racist, and having evidence to back, though will still make them defensive to a point, but unable to deny it. They may choose to, but that would only move them up into the #1 category. Frankly I have never liked the idea of 'attack the argument, not the person' because it assumes both arguments are unbiased and equal, which is absurd. how can prejudging be equal to not judging?
He describes the nature of the American Experiment as the hypothesis of whether a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation state can work. The natural inclination of people would be toward “tribalism”, as in, a strong affinity with those perceived as similar and a strong antipathy with those considered others. The premise of the founding was joining a culturally diverse set of colonies from what was a very expansive geography for a single nation at the time. And the cultural, constitutional, and legal evolutions since then were aimed at integrating the society more fully.
Stewart points out that the natural follow up to Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” would be to ask what makes it great in the first place, and that the above is the correct answer to that question.
Remarkable though, he acknowledges the natural inclination to “tribalism” on the side of the left as well, at least those parts of it that insist on characterizing Trump’s supporters as “all racists”.
I have to agree with him here, that there is more division in the use of the term now than there is any sincere attempt to persuade others to disabuse themselves of their preconceived notions about other groups. It’s become the calling card of the left against any position taken by the right on social issues, whether it has anything to do with race or not. It’s been misappropriated to do the very thing that it should caution against.
Also important to recognize, most people are not conscious of their own inclination to “tribalism”, so if someone were to actually engage that in discourse, it would have to be with much more delicacy than any normal position in a discussion would require. You’re not going to both make someone aware of preconceived notions that they were unconscious of and persuade them to question them without a great deal of delicacy. That’s just the fact of the matter.
To pretend that people are conceived in innocence, without this natural inclination to tribalism, and then acting appalled and with self-indignation whenever those sentiments arise, that’s doing a disservice to the magnitude of the undertaking of having a co-equal society. To look at some parts of society though, they just don’t care as much about the actual objective as much as they just care about virtue-signaling and self-identifying. Going through the motions is easy, actually understanding other people’s perspectives, that is hard.
I know that, of course. "White people have problems with hiring, going to school with, renting to, living next to, etc., black people" just wasn't as punchy. And not all the victims are black, and not all the perpetrators are white... it gets complicated. Which is why we use shorthand terms like "systemic racism". But we shouldn't lose sight of what those terms are packaging.
It's largely a function of segregation being enforced by socio-economic trends and the systemic denial of means which would allow the country to continue to be mixed. There are several vectors to getting there: 1. Gerrymandering School Districts 2. White flight 3. Selective Hiring (probably more)
That's all still reification of the emergent results of decisions individuals make.
Basically. Institutional racism can occur irrespective of the goals of the people who govern or live under the rules and it's a pretty shallow hard to substantiate opinion to believe otherwise.
If the goals of the people who govern or live under the rules are not racist, then it's not racism. Racism is a human motive, not a description of anything and everything which hurts a certain race. Let me be clear: I'm not saying that if a racial-minority community were in a bad way somehow caused purely by "the system" without any racist decisions by individuals, we shouldn't try to fix the problem. I'm saying that I'm very skeptical this is how it happens in the real world, but if it truly is, then it would be no more appropriate to call the situation "systemic racism" than we'd call a meteor hitting the community "cosmological racism". It's not like we don't provide help to victims of natural disaster -- we just don't frame it as part of the anti-racist crusade.
And "racism" is not indefinable or without meaning. It's a nuanced conversation, sure. And the term is loaded particularly heavily with a bunch of historical weight and connotation. But pretending "racism" doesn't mean anything is like the ultimate of white denial.
I also think that the recent studies into implicit bias imply that we can accidentally and subconsciously create a biased system which would discriminate against those we just don't have that much contact with or think about or misunderstand.
Recall that I was responding to Hackworth's proposal of structural racism as a category distinct from both conscious and subconscious racism. I'm saying it's not; it's a consequence of one or both.
Racism does often come with a belief structure, but racist the description also has a definition that just includes discrimination by race. A system which discriminates by race, even if it's just the collective result of a bunch of laws that don't appear to be explicitly discriminatory, can still be discriminatory as a whole regardless of the intent of the people who wrote those laws.
Think of society like a computer program processing data. Yes, a complicated program can certainly have unintended results as its functions interact in ways the designers didn't expect. But if the program spits out the data sorted by a certain variable, then at some point some function must have called that variable. In order for society to have a racist result, at some point some function of society has to notice race. And the functions of society are performed by individual people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think there are racists who have contributed to creating a system that discriminates against blacks and that while (until recently) there had not been a lot of intention behind keeping that system in place or fortifying it, it didn't need someone at the helm for it to continue functioning. The racist actions of our civilization's past echo into today.
I also think that the recent studies into implicit bias imply that we can accidentally and subconsciously create a biased system which would discriminate against those we just don't have that much contact with or think about or misunderstand.
Racism does often come with a belief structure, but racist the description also has a definition that just includes discrimination by race. A system which discriminates by race, even if it's just the collective result of a bunch of laws that don't appear to be explicitly discriminatory, can still be discriminatory as a whole regardless of the intent of the people who wrote those laws.
I think it’s disingenuous to call “racism” any discrimination based on race, as measured by objective outcomes. I know that the intent of specific legislation (Civil Rights, etc) was to prohibit discrimination in certain contexts like the workplace, but I’d caution against looking at that like it’s racism. It’s not the dictionary definition, or the social definition.
The old dictionary will say that racism is the perception of some trait specific to race, such that the race is either superior or inferior to another race. As much as separate but equal doesn’t fly in the policy sphere, it’s still possible to acknowledge race and differences between racial cultures without believing that those differences make one race better/worse than another. And to hear most people tell it, they prefer to have race acknowledged rather than ignored. The only people who seem to think that “race-blindness” is the solution are white apologists, and in my opinion, they are mostly from cultures that are not racially diverse at all.
Also the social definition, the goal of the American Experiment, if I might offer an opinion, is to have a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural society. It’s not the goal to have a monolithic “American” ethnicity, irrespective of race. It’s the idea that there are benefits to diversity, inclusion, and mutual respect that are derived specifically from having multiple races and cultures. So, it’s ok for example to acknowledge that Vietnamese people eat more Pho soup, despite the fact that it will get you an accusation of racism from a White college sophomore nowadays. We all benefit because Pho is delicious, and we have better Pho restaurants when we include people from the Vietnamese culture in the US (among other innumberable benefits, of course).
Now, ask why 1st generation immigrants from Vietnam like to spend time together, and blame it on historic White oppression that occurred centuries before they were even in the US, that’s a trap. It leads to some very passive disengagement around race issues. To my observation also, it’s the more passive cultures that have problems integrating racially. In the Pacific Northwest where I live now, for example, they all vote left, love self-guilt about being White, and think racism is anathema. But, it still sucks for non-white people here, because people are so passive about it that it’s uncomfortable. Lots of people would rather live somewhere like Chicago, NY, or Miami, because at least there you are comfortable in your own skin.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As Highroller wrote, this topic is deep enough to merit a thread onto itself.
Based on what I've read in this thread thus far (which to be honest, is what bLatch wrote; I haven't paid much attention to earlier pages so I apologize if I missed others), this seems to be an unfair characterization of what we're arguing. As far as I'm concerned, it has little to do with protecting the fragile heart of racists.
What I'm arguing is that- if you actually want to persuade someone, using charged language will probably not get you very far.
It's the same concept behind dealing with spousal disputes, or disputes in general.
Saying things that cause the other party to become defensive/put up walls is generally considered a poor argumentative technique.
So, if I bring up the example I made earlier-
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "You're racist and sexist. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
vs.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "It's not fair to say that. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
Person B can actually address Person A's argument without ever once mentioning that Person A is being racist and sexist. Those words simply add nothing to actually addressing the rationale behind Person A's racist and sexist beliefs.
If you assume that your opposition is not going to be persuaded by you, why aren't you also assuming that the third-party reader doesn't have some preconceived notions that you cannot change?
The fundamental point I make still stays the same.
-It's counter-productive to use language/phrases that place others on the defensive/cause them to put up walls.
-Given that you're probably arguing against the flawed logic/understanding behind the racist/sexist/what have you belief, it's frankly unnecessary to actually ever state that they're racist/sexist/what have you anyways. Just deal with the flawed logic/understanding.
Of course you'll run into people who refuse to argue in a proper manner and refuse to give ground on anything, but that happens in pretty much all avenues of life and should generally be attributed to that person just being incredibly bull-headed more than that person being some unrepentant racist.
Heck, it's happening at my work-place right now concerning matters that have absolutely nothing to do with ethics and morality.
Some people just become unmalleable stones regarding certain issues at some point in their lives and think that they're correct and will always argue on the assumption that they're correct.
I don't understand what you've changed here. You had been talking about how to persuade someone that they are indeed a racist. You propose to do this by never using the word "racist", but have made no attempt to explain how that works.
=> Mr. B does not want to be characterized as racist, so he becomes defensive
Mr. A: Hey Mr. C, Mr. B is racist
=> Mr. C does not want to be characterized as racist, so he distances himself from Mr. B
Obviously a simplified version of the situation, and this may not be the case for every "Mr. C", but I hope it gets the point across.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
So now our hypothetical Mr. C is so unable to cope with opposing view points that he will shut down at the mere suggestion that his opinion of B is wrong. In other words, we cannot present to Mr. C any premise with which he disagrees, or else he will find himself on the defensive. If that's true of Mr. C, then it doesn't matter what we say - he is simply not open to having his mind changed.
That's a terrible strawman Tiax.
No one has said this.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
For example, talking Donald Trump's muslim ban idea, calling Donald Trump racist does not necessarily have anything to do with the policy idea in question. The more direct argument is that the policy idea itself is discriminatory, because it's the policy idea that's in question.
Then there's the point that saying racist things doesn't necessarily make someone racist, even if a strong indicator, it's not a strict determinator.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No, that's exactly what he said. He said that Mr. C "will not [accept]" that his opinion of B is wrong. Mr. C is not even being called a racist here - there's no hint of insult or questioning of Mr. C's character. The "loaded point" that Mr. C apparently can't accept is merely that some third party might be a racist, and Mr. C doesn't think so.
I don't know what to tell you, but these do not say the same thing at all.
Especially look to this
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Oh come on. He literally said, "then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive". You're really going to quibble over whether it's said at the start? Is your position now that you can totally say racist, as long as it's not the first thing you say? If that's not your position, then this is a red herring.
Again, you are missing the point. What you said was 'we cannot present...any premise with which he disagrees'. That was never said or implied. We talking about specific ways of objecting to B.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
He said that the thing which would put "C" on the defensive is the possibility that "your opinion of "B" is wrong." Not a specific way of objecting - just the mere idea that his opinion is wrong.
But yes if your opinion of a person is challenged it is more likely to put you on defense then if your opinion on a subject is challenged because people like to think they are good judges of character. Partially because it encompasses many facets while a single subject is exactly that, a single subject.
'Your opinion of B' is not an unapecific opinion about B it has to do with whether B is racist ir not. The point is clearly to do with racism being an inflammatory word not with opposition itself being inflammatory.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"Some other person is a racist" is not "You're wrong and a horrible person" - it doesn't call into question your character. If someone is unwilling to be challenged on whether they have correctly judged a third party's character, then why would they be willing to be challenged on other similarly benign points? People like to think they're good judges of character, but people also like to thing they're good judges of facts. No matter what point you challenges them on, you're going to put them on the defensive. That's just how arguments work.
The effect of refusing to even say the word "racist" is that you normalize racism. Even if you manage to convince people that one specific racist view is incorrect via this pathetic whack-a-mole strategy, you've left unchallenged the underlying idea that such views represent a valid way of looking at the world. To take magickware's example, even if you convince someone that the statistics don't support their Asian driver stereotype, you've done nothing to dispel the pattern of thinking that leads one to that sort of stereotype.
1) Conscious beliefs – People who harbor hostile feelings about races other than their own, know that they do, and will admit that they do. These are the only people who fit the literal definition of racist – “the belief that one or more races are inferior or superior to others”. These are the KKK groups of the world. Even they won’t use the term “racist” for themselves, but are mostly ambivalent about it inasmuch as they’ve reconciled themselves to that belief. You can call them racist, but then they will expect to have a debate on the actual merits/demerits of racism. Something tells me that this isn't what happens most of the time you call someone racist.
2) Unconscious beliefs – People who have hostile feelings around race, but aren’t aware that it amounts to racism. These people are those who believe something along the lines that they and people like them are more worthy of jobs in the US than people that aren’t like them, and whose discontent about the economy can be directed at outgroups. Debatably just as racist in fact, but they don’t identify with the label “racist” because they reserve that for people above who are openly conscious of their racism, as above.
3) Belief as statement of identity – People who don’t harbor any such feelings about race, but identify with one of the above groups on some other terms, e.g. political party. These are the people who resent the label “racist” the most, because they are literally not racist, and they’re unaware/unsure whether the rest of the group they’ve identified with is racist. So like anyone falsely accused of something, using that label against them is a non-starter.
4) Belief as the actual opposition issues – The people who think that the #1 still poses a threat to society, and that #2 needs to be brought along. They are mostly reasonable people that generally don’t find themselves in the same room as racists, but also because of a set of further issues on top of just this one.
5) Belief as a label used by the outgroup – The people who developed and use the term “racist” as a label for things that don’t fit the literal definition of racism. If you don’t like illegal immigration from Mexico, you are “racist” (even though Mexico is a country, not a race). If you think there should be a registry for Muslims, you’re “racist” (again, Islam is a religion, not a race). It has been really easy to spot the flimsiness of the label in the Trump campaign, because most of the abhorrent ideas that he’s put forward have been on the basis of some protected class other than race. But, the label has such wide appeal among this outgroup that a lot of media outlets have even used terms like “overtly racist” to describe Trump.
The facts as I see them, the support Trump has gained from the abhorrent things he’s said come exclusively from the #2 group, those who are unwittingly using things like race (religion, national origin) as a stand-in for their actual fears about unquantified threats from the outside. They might be “racist”, but they don’t think so, and so using the label against them makes them feel like their legitimate concerns are being dismissed. It's not that you can't call a racist a racist, it's that you've taken a matter that was at issue in their mind, then turned it into the issue of racism instead.
Note specifically, here the Republican base prior to this has been centered mostly around #3. Leaders like McCain and Romney were aware enough of the vulnerability of the #2 group, and were firmly set enough in their own position to know the pitfalls and perils of policy unconsciously directed by racism.
But at no point has the #1 group ever been an actual voting bloc for the right. At no point either did Trump make any statements that seem like they could’ve come from that group, or openly courted that group. The only thing that he did regarding that group, in my memory, was tell the news anchor that he wasn’t sure who David Duke was. It’s demonstrably evident that he does know what David Duke was, so he ended up blaming it on a faulty earpiece (unlikely). He probably just wanted to assess whether it was politically prudent for him to disavow before he did so. Admittedly very troublesome, and probably evidence that he’s aware he’s courting the #2 group, but it doesn’t amount to “overt white supremacy”. What you actually have in Trump is someone with a very long track record of not wanting to be associated with David Duke, openly professes inclusion and tolerance, and who tweets how much he loves taco salad on Cinco de Mayo.
The people who have utterly discredited themselves in this election cycle have been the #5 group, who use the label “racism” for any and all things not belonging to them. I’ve heard a lot of people say that to them, this feels exactly like the 2000 election that Gore lost. To me, that makes it pretty clear then that they’re so far out of touch that they literally see no difference between 1, 2 and 3, above. Bush, McCain, Romney, so forth, are on the same level as the KKK. That the only reason someone would have to be against unisex bathrooms, for example, is because have confederate flag placemats and would gladly own slaves if they had the opportunity. There are really an alarming number of people who think and act this way.
Rightfully so, they’re not being listened to anymore. The Democrats have now failed specifically for their reliance on this group to mount a national election. A great number of them prefer candidates who actually hold positions on the left (such as Sanders with his economic policy), over candidates like Hillary who are hawkish on foreign policy and hold centrist economic views (Greenspan), but who happen to have learned the language of “racism” as a label (glass ceiling, so on). In the end, people just really didn’t care enough about what bathrooms people are using against the backdrop of a decade long economic recession.
So Mr.A strategy is to segregate Mr.B and deny him any opportunity to even take part in the debate ? The debate regarding the direction of the society he/she is part of (just like Mr.A and Mr.C)...
I'm pretty sure Mr.C is wrong but it doesn't change the fact that we stand in quicksand if we don't live up to our own values.
Art is life itself.
Then no one can be called racist (type #6) because it's really hard to establish anyone as responsible for structural issues in society.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
He describes the nature of the American Experiment as the hypothesis of whether a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation state can work. The natural inclination of people would be toward “tribalism”, as in, a strong affinity with those perceived as similar and a strong antipathy with those considered others. The premise of the founding was joining a culturally diverse set of colonies from what was a very expansive geography for a single nation at the time. And the cultural, constitutional, and legal evolutions since then were aimed at integrating the society more fully.
Stewart points out that the natural follow up to Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” would be to ask what makes it great in the first place, and that the above is the correct answer to that question.
Remarkable though, he acknowledges the natural inclination to “tribalism” on the side of the left as well, at least those parts of it that insist on characterizing Trump’s supporters as “all racists”.
I have to agree with him here, that there is more division in the use of the term now than there is any sincere attempt to persuade others to disabuse themselves of their preconceived notions about other groups. It’s become the calling card of the left against any position taken by the right on social issues, whether it has anything to do with race or not. It’s been misappropriated to do the very thing that it should caution against.
Also important to recognize, most people are not conscious of their own inclination to “tribalism”, so if someone were to actually engage that in discourse, it would have to be with much more delicacy than any normal position in a discussion would require. You’re not going to both make someone aware of preconceived notions that they were unconscious of and persuade them to question them without a great deal of delicacy. That’s just the fact of the matter.
To pretend that people are conceived in innocence, without this natural inclination to tribalism, and then acting appalled and with self-indignation whenever those sentiments arise, that’s doing a disservice to the magnitude of the undertaking of having a co-equal society. To look at some parts of society though, they just don’t care as much about the actual objective as much as they just care about virtue-signaling and self-identifying. Going through the motions is easy, actually understanding other people’s perspectives, that is hard.
That's all still reification of the emergent results of decisions individuals make.
If the goals of the people who govern or live under the rules are not racist, then it's not racism. Racism is a human motive, not a description of anything and everything which hurts a certain race. Let me be clear: I'm not saying that if a racial-minority community were in a bad way somehow caused purely by "the system" without any racist decisions by individuals, we shouldn't try to fix the problem. I'm saying that I'm very skeptical this is how it happens in the real world, but if it truly is, then it would be no more appropriate to call the situation "systemic racism" than we'd call a meteor hitting the community "cosmological racism". It's not like we don't provide help to victims of natural disaster -- we just don't frame it as part of the anti-racist crusade.
Yeah, exactly, "racism" means something.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Think of society like a computer program processing data. Yes, a complicated program can certainly have unintended results as its functions interact in ways the designers didn't expect. But if the program spits out the data sorted by a certain variable, then at some point some function must have called that variable. In order for society to have a racist result, at some point some function of society has to notice race. And the functions of society are performed by individual people.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think it’s disingenuous to call “racism” any discrimination based on race, as measured by objective outcomes. I know that the intent of specific legislation (Civil Rights, etc) was to prohibit discrimination in certain contexts like the workplace, but I’d caution against looking at that like it’s racism. It’s not the dictionary definition, or the social definition.
The old dictionary will say that racism is the perception of some trait specific to race, such that the race is either superior or inferior to another race. As much as separate but equal doesn’t fly in the policy sphere, it’s still possible to acknowledge race and differences between racial cultures without believing that those differences make one race better/worse than another. And to hear most people tell it, they prefer to have race acknowledged rather than ignored. The only people who seem to think that “race-blindness” is the solution are white apologists, and in my opinion, they are mostly from cultures that are not racially diverse at all.
Also the social definition, the goal of the American Experiment, if I might offer an opinion, is to have a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural society. It’s not the goal to have a monolithic “American” ethnicity, irrespective of race. It’s the idea that there are benefits to diversity, inclusion, and mutual respect that are derived specifically from having multiple races and cultures. So, it’s ok for example to acknowledge that Vietnamese people eat more Pho soup, despite the fact that it will get you an accusation of racism from a White college sophomore nowadays. We all benefit because Pho is delicious, and we have better Pho restaurants when we include people from the Vietnamese culture in the US (among other innumberable benefits, of course).
Now, ask why 1st generation immigrants from Vietnam like to spend time together, and blame it on historic White oppression that occurred centuries before they were even in the US, that’s a trap. It leads to some very passive disengagement around race issues. To my observation also, it’s the more passive cultures that have problems integrating racially. In the Pacific Northwest where I live now, for example, they all vote left, love self-guilt about being White, and think racism is anathema. But, it still sucks for non-white people here, because people are so passive about it that it’s uncomfortable. Lots of people would rather live somewhere like Chicago, NY, or Miami, because at least there you are comfortable in your own skin.