Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I cannot state that "just about everyone" is racist any more than I can prove "everyone is racist" because there's no way to prove either.

You can't read, can you? I stopped using the word "racist." I asked you a question that didn't use the word. Without using the word "racist," just answer what I asked you: Now we're talking about what reality is, not about what label you put on it. You agree that there is societal discrimination and systematic disadvantage based on race and ethnicity. Do you really disagree that just about everyone is involved, with or without being aware of or meaning to, by action or omission, perpetuating systemic disadvantage? I said "just about everyone" because of your concern about newborns.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Preet Bharara interview:

Bharara, like most informed observers, thinks it highly unlikely that the SDNY will indict Trump while he is still in office. Though there is nothing in the constitution or in law to stop the SDNY from charging Trump, Department of Justice guidelines bar sitting presidents from being prosecuted, and Bharara does not expect to see his former colleagues “going rogue” in that way.

But when Trump leaves office, all bets are off.

The culture of the SDNY is such that if they feel they have sufficient evidence they will definitely go after him when he leaves the White House. “Right is right, and no one’s above the law. That’s not just lip service – the SDNY is steeped in it. No one is above the law: I don’t care who you are, how much money you have, who your friends are.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You can't read, can you? I stopped using the word "racist." I asked you a question that didn't use the word. Without using the word "racist," just answer what I asked you: Now we're talking about what reality is, not about what label you put on it. You agree that there is societal discrimination and systematic disadvantage based on race and ethnicity. Do you really disagree that just about everyone is involved, with or without being aware of or meaning to, by action or omission, perpetuating systemic disadvantage? I said "just about everyone" because of your concern about newborns.

I can’t say just about everyone is involved in systemic discrimination. There’s no way to make that leap. Everyone is a huge group. We could find a small percentage of everyone is responsible. We could find roughly half of everyone is responsible.

I’m avoiding using involved because that’s a broad term that could be used to assert everyone within the system is “involved” in discrimination simply because they deal with or work within the system. Using that measure, the entire population of the world from countries which deal with the US is involved in systemic discrimination.

I am comfortable stating that a significant portion of the US population is responsible for perpetuating systemic discrimination. I think a fair reading of available facts and data allows that. How significant? I don’t know. That’s the argument of degree I previously referenced.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can’t say just about everyone is involved in systemic discrimination. There’s no way to make that leap. Everyone is a huge group. We could find a small percentage of everyone is responsible. We could find roughly half of everyone is responsible.

I’m avoiding using involved because that’s a broad term that could be used to assert everyone within the system is “involved” in discrimination simply because they deal with or work within the system. Using that measure, the entire population of the world from countries which deal with the US is involved in systemic discrimination.

I am comfortable staying that a significant portion of the US population is responsible for perpetuating systemic discrimination. I think a fair reading of available facts and data allows that. How significant? I don’t know. That’s the argument of degree I previously referenced.

So now you are that much closer to understanding. You asked how the broad definition of racism could be useful. Here's the answer. We live in a racist society. Pretty much everyone in that society, without regard to individual views and attitudes, is involved in some way in perpetuating that racism. The broad definition of "racist" captures this, at the cost of blurring distinctions between individual attitudes that you find really important. In particular, you think it's really important to distinguish between people who are consciously and intentionally bigoted, and everyone else.

I don't disagree that your distinction has some value, but I don't think it has as much value as you do. (Partly because the word "bigot" has the meaning you want for "racist.") And you don't seem to have any other word to use to capture that sense in which everyone is complicit.

I will say this: If everyone is a "racist" then calling someone a "racist" becomes tautological, not particularly descriptive. That supports an intuition that the narrower sense of the word is more useful. On the other hand, using "racist" to describe actions or things or institutions that fit the broader sense is quite valuable, because that stuff is all around us and there really isn't another good way to say that. So that is very descriptive. Of course, if one isn't really concerned at all with that sort of thing, one doesn't need a word for it. Eskimos had lots of words for snow, but none for structured derivatives, or so I've heard.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So now you are that much closer to understanding. You asked how the broad definition of racism could be useful. Here's the answer. We live in a racist society. Pretty much everyone in that society, without regard to individual views and attitudes, is involved in some way in perpetuating that racism. The broad definition of "racist" captures this, at the cost of blurring distinctions between individual attitudes that you find really important. In particular, you think it's really important to distinguish between people who are consciously and intentionally bigoted, and everyone else.

I don't disagree that your distinction has some value, but I don't think it has as much value as you do. (Partly because the word "bigot" has the meaning you want for "racist.") And you don't seem to have any other word to use to capture that sense in which everyone is complicit.

I will say this: If everyone is a "racist" then calling someone a "racist" becomes tautological, not particularly descriptive. That supports an intuition that the narrower sense of the word is more useful. On the other hand, using "racist" to describe actions or things or institutions that fit the broader sense is quite valuable, because that stuff is all around us and there really isn't another good way to say that. So that is very descriptive. Of course, if one isn't really concerned at all with that sort of thing, one doesn't need a word for it. Eskimos had lots of words for snow, but none for structured derivatives, or so I've heard.

I don’t disagree the broad definition seems necessary. But I do not think it is the proper expression of what you’re describing. Systemic racism is a different animal than individual racism. You and I and everyone else in this country live within a racist system. That system is filled with structures which are designed to and in fact perpetuate racism. The same cannot be said of every person or just about every person living within that system. Each person must be assessed individually.

We can say, for example, the US justice system is a racist system. But we cannot extrapolate from there that all justice systems are racist. And that is comparing apples to apples. To extrapolate from the fact that the US justice system is racist, or even that numerous US institutions are racist, and therefore all or nearly all US citizens are racist is comparing apples and grains of sand. The system is not the individual any more than the individual is the system. (This is one of the axioms that has kept us from war with Iran, a country of diverse people with diverse views run by an indefensible system.)

I don’t think any fair person can or should label all or most of the citizens of a nation with a description that fits its institutions generally. And I also do not think it needs to be done. It’s quite enough, and effective, to state that a society is run by racist systems decent men would seek to fix. Shaming individuals as racists using a definition that only fits systems will not cure the apathy this device seeks to eradicate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don’t disagree the broad definition seems necessary. But I do not think it is the proper expression of what you’re describing. Systemic racism is a different animal than individual racism. You and I and everyone else in this country live within a racist system. That system is filled with structures which are designed to and in fact perpetuate racism. The same cannot be said of every person or just about every person living within that system. Each person must be assessed individually.

We can say, for example, the US justice system is a racist system. But we cannot extrapolate from there that all justice systems are racist. And that is comparing apples to apples. To extrapolate from the fact that the US justice system is racist, or even that numerous US institutions are racist, and therefore all or nearly all US citizens are racist is comparing apples and grains of sand. The system is not the individual any more than the individual is the system. (This is one of the axioms that has kept us from war with Iran, a country of diverse people with diverse views run by an indefensible system.)

I don’t think any fair person can or should label all or most of the citizens of a nation with a description that fits its institutions generally. And I also do not think it needs to be done. It’s quite enough, and effective, to state that a society is run by racist systems decent men would seek to fix. Shaming individuals as racists using a definition that only fits systems will not cure the apathy this device seeks to eradicate.

I don't think anyone said the point is to shame everyone, but if the utmost concern is to avoid making anyone uncomfortable, what you say makes total sense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think anyone said the point is to shame everyone, but if the utmost concern is to avoid making anyone uncomfortable, what you say makes total sense.

Then why use the accusation on an individual level when it doesn’t fit?

The utmost concern is paring racism as effectively as possible. Using terms where they don’t fit and appear to used disingenuously is the opposite of effective.

It’s been argued Trump is largely a reaction to political correctness. I don’t agree, but if we assume I’m wrong and that’s right, why would one double down on using terms in a manner that invites such backlash where he could easily use accurate, factual statements which cannot be refuted to make his claims?

[LessinSF]

More, though not much, about Wilkie Farr's cheater - https://cornellsun.com/2019/03/13/go...ed-with-fraud/

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Then why use the accusation on an individual level when it doesn’t fit?

Because it isn't an "accusation."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Then why use the accusation on an individual level when it doesn’t fit?

If you assume that the word means only what you say, then that question makes sense. For just a second, try to pretend that the word means what others have suggested, in which case your question is incoherent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you assume that the word means only what you say, then that question makes sense. For just a second, try to pretend that the word means what others have suggested, in which case your question is incoherent.

Or try this for fun. When I use the word "racist," assume that I am using a different word "rracist," which includes the meaning you ascribe to "racist" but also has the broader meaning I've suggested. Spelled the same because I forgot the second "r" but otherwise a different word meaning what you think "racist" doesn't mean. Try that and let's see how it works.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Or try this for fun. When I use the word "racist," assume that I am using a different word "rracist," which includes the meaning you ascribe to "racist" but also has the broader meaning I've suggested. Spelled the same because I forgot the second "r" but otherwise a different word meaning what you think "racist" doesn't mean. Try that and let's see how it works.

Are yo suggesting he's some kind of rrascist?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So, my son is a drug addict (not opiates thank goodness). So the wife and I have been going to something called Families Anonymous. It's a 12 step program that attempts to give one tools to deal with issues. The 12 steps for FA track the AA 12 steps, but are directed to the family instead of the addict.

Step 4 is take an inventory- AA for the addict. FA is for the parents- the inventory is listing faults you need to work on, then step 5+ you start dealing with fixing that shit.

I was just looking at the worksheet for it. It says everyone can list faults in others. It paraphrased what most people say, like we all sit and listen to others in the meetings listing their faults thinking "Yeah, you're right, that is a fault you have." But then we say, "ourselves, we really got nothing wrong."

Then it gives some techniques to work through getting to your list. One is "list a strength then list a fault," kind of sugar coating. Then once you're done, it again paraphrases, "what were we afraid of? admitting we got some work to do wasn't so bad after all."

Anyhoo it kind of tracked what typically happens when a white person is accused of racism- "yes those people are racist, but me, you know I'm not." But then it helped take the next step. There should be a worksheet to help people get through accepting their own racism.

I think this is a beautiful post and an excellent idea. I will try to employ it when it comes to my own colorism.

And I'm very sorry to hear about your son's addiction. I hope both he and the family find the strength to get through it.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Sorry to hear you're going through that issue. I hope it goes well and your child conquers the problem as quickly and completely as possible. That's got to be horribly painful.

There should be a worksheet to explain institutional racism. I don't think a lot of people understand how that works or how it's defined, which is a big part of the disconnect. There really are two forms of racism. One is personally acting or harboring racist views. Another is the societal structures all around us that perpetuate it. I think a lot of people confuse the two. I also think a lot of people accuse a person of being racist when the better way to state it without facing pushback would be to say "you're part of a racist system." If you get society, broadly, to accept that fact, who cares whether someone quibbles with whether he himself is personally a racist.

I'm going to try again, because I think you're making progress.

After reading your analysis, I think you need to add another category.

1. Institutional Racism
2. Intentionally Evil Personal Racism
3. Lower Level Racism

I think you have moved away from only acknowledging Intentionally Evil Personal Racism, which I appreciate, but you're throwing everything else into category 1. And I don't think you're wrong to say that people need to learn about how Institutional Racism is structural, permeates society, and contributes to the success of some to the active detriment of others.

So, moving on...if you acknowledge unconscious and confirmation-type biases exist (and I think they often contribute to the perpetuation of Institutional Racism even though they aren't the only factors), you're only a step away from acknowledging the grey area between Intentionally Evil Personal Racism and the state of having zero racism whatsoever (which I think you think is colorblindness, even though it is not--but let's not deal with that here).

Given the society in which we live and the value inherent in one's skin in this country, I don't think anyone is free from some level of racism. Whether you feel uncomfortable when you see a dark-skinned man walking your way or your prefer women or men with European features, we all carry it. We just carry it at different levels. Carrying it doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. Recognizing and actually acknowledging that it exists in you is what is almost impossible. And White Fragility addresses that issue and I think Hank's post does as well.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Call one of them a racist and they'll dig in and fight. Even I will still dig in and fight if you call me racist. Why? Because it's a lazy way to say a more complex thing.

This is your major problem. If you can't hear someone when they say something you've done is racist and all you hear is someone calling you a racist and thus, a bad person, you have taken a word that has a complex meaning and rendered it useless. If (for one example), when it comes to black women, you think only like light-skinned black women with European features are attractive, that is objectively racist. I should be able to say that to you without you shutting down and telling me how you can't control who you're attracted to or that you have black friends or that race never entered into your head or that you can't be racist because you had a black girlfriend. The fact that you have been conditioned to prefer a European beauty ideal doesn't make you Steve King. But it is indeed racist.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And the silly argument that to bristle at it is to prove white fragility insults my intellect. I'm happy to engage insult and hyperbole all day long. I actually enjoy it. But it had better be really well crafted, and not the sort of thing a sophomoric sort could wield as a cudgel.

Again, this paragraph shows that you. do. not. listen.

The concept of White Fragility isn't meant to be a fucking insult. It means when it comes to this specific topic, because applying the term "racism" to any of your actions carries with it the idea that you are a bad person, you no longer listen to why whatever action at issue is wrong or hurtful (even if it is what I referred to in the previous email as Low Level Racism). Your sole focus is proving that you are not a bad person. And since we all have to deal with that, we never get back to why that initial action is wrong and how you can correct it.

I would like to explain to people I've come across who have said, "She's cute for a black girl," why that is racist. It's clearly not the same as saying, "Niggers disgust me." But if I can't even talk to them about the former they are fucking fragile--meaning, their feelings take over a conversation in which they can be educated. That's not meant to be an insult.

TM