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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

STP, my friend.

Get a room.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Get a room.

I understand that you are color blind and that I have a great jump shot, but it was TM's post he need to S to and TP.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, it is indistinguishable from “biased based on race,” which, bingo, is what the word “racist” means.

First, the back and forth I've had with TM is much more expansive than what you and I had, so do not assume this is responsive at all to him.

This is addressed to you alone. It's kind of abstract, but stick with me:

-All people are inherently biased in regard to almost all stimuli they see.
-This includes appearance, voice, dress, almost anything.
-People are bombarded with stereotypes of others from birth (from media, from family, from friends, etc.).
-People also develop their own biases from past experiences with people (generalizing that all of a group behaves a certain way based on interaction with single member of group).
-There are a million heuristics that your brain uses to pre-judge people, things, and situations in the moment (it's an evolutionary survival mechanism).
-From an evolutionary perspective, you cannot help but be biased in some regard toward anything you encounter (unless it's something entirely unlike anything you've had any exposure to in the past).

-Using these facts, everyone is indeed racist, as you cannot possibly avoid taking race into account in some regard, positive, negative, or neutral, when you encounter a person.
-This necessarily means everyone is biased toward all other races and even his own.
-It also means we're classist, sexist, regionalist, nationalist, etc., because we all have kneejerk biases toward all people based on what we know about their background.

-If we adopt your position that all men are racists because it's impossible not to be racist (which is true within that definition) aren't we just lumping race into a large bucket of other stimuli in response to which people develop biases?

I'm not arguing or playing a game here. Perhaps you see where I'm going, perhaps not. Racism as a historical phenomenon in the US is unique. It's historically been aimed at one group. How do you not dilute that unique definition by using the expansive definition that racism includes "any instance in which you have developed a bias against another based on his race." It seems like there need to be sub-definitions of racism, one of which would be "Anti-Black Racism," which would cover the unique societal elements of that particular variant we've had here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Why are you avoiding them? Are you avoiding specific people based on their beliefs and actions? Or are you saying that there are degrees of racism and you have found that white people in certain areas are more racist? Is your avoidance based on their race or your judgment of who they are based on where they live or how they look?

I'm guessing their probable beliefs and actions in part based on their race. They're white, and facets of their physical appearance and their facial expressions indicate potential for aggressive and impulsive behavior. You learn to spot them when traveling through rural locales (I drive a lot).

I think assortative mating is creating a lot of white people in dire circumstances who look a lot alike. It's skin tone, posture, eyes, and a mixture of features that cause the reptile brain in my head to say, High chance of aggression, possible drug addict. Avoid. I'm not the only one who's registered this phenomenon going on in his head.

Most people who are educated in race issues distinguish between racism and race prejudice. Racism is widely considered to be something that carries with it the power of racist society and its racist institutions. Race prejudice is more likely what you're describing.

That's a distinction I think fixes the confusion. This was a lot of my problem with Adder's definition. When you add the power component to Racism, I think you necessarily grab its most pernicious element. Race prejudice is almost impossible to eradicate as people will always default to stereotypes on some level (Kahnemann can speak to that). Racism as a system in which a race is targeted and marginalized is curable.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

-If we adopt your position that all men are racists because it's impossible not to be racist (which is true within that definition) aren't we just lumping race into a large bucket of other stimuli in response to which people develop biases?

1. If so, so what?

2. I mean, sure, if you just want to ignore history.

And yes, you provided those answers in what came next. I'm just don't see the problem you're seeing. The history (and present) of anti-black racism is different from racism or bias against other groups. It also has a lot in common with racism against, for example, native and Asian people too, especially looking into the past.

As a bit of a tangent, some local historians have been looking back on restrictive covenants in deeds in Minneapolis. I helped look some of them in via their online crowdsource project. The language used was fascinating, seeming to begin with "no negroes" and expand out other groups (e.g., Jews, moslems, turkmen, and other anachronistic terms I can't remember right now).

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

-All people are inherently biased in regard to almost all stimuli they see.
-This includes appearance, voice, dress, almost anything.
-People are bombarded with stereotypes of others from birth (from media, from family, from friends, etc.).
-People also develop their own biases from past experiences with people (generalizing that all of a group behaves a certain way based on interaction with single member of group).
-There are a million heuristics that your brain uses to pre-judge people, things, and situations in the moment (it's an evolutionary survival mechanism).
-From an evolutionary perspective, you cannot help but be biased in some regard toward anything you encounter (unless it's something entirely unlike anything you've had any exposure to in the past).

-Using these facts, everyone is indeed racist, as you cannot possibly avoid taking race into account in some regard, positive, negative, or neutral, when you encounter a person.
-This necessarily means everyone is biased toward all other races and even his own.
-It also means we're classist, sexist, regionalist, nationalist, etc., because we all have kneejerk biases toward all people based on what we know about their background.

You are correct. We are built to create shortcuts. These shortcuts result in prejudgments. Sometimes they are positive, sometimes they are negative.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

-If we adopt your position that all men are racists because it's impossible not to be racist (which is true within that definition) aren't we just lumping race into a large bucket of other stimuli in response to which people develop biases?

No. Because the biases created when it relates to race (especially towards black and brown people) are based on complete fucking bullshit which has been historically cemented into our societal outlook and reinforced at every turn by white people who benefit (intentionally or unintentionally) from it. They must be actively fought. But first the actions you take (and the thoughts you think) based on your racial biases must be acknowledged.

You cannot lump biases based on race in this country with the mental shortcuts you take when it comes to actual experiences you've had and say, "Hey, this is all the same shit!" If you know 2 dozen lawyers and they all tend to argue over anything and everything, it makes sense for your brain to create a shortcut when you encounter a lawyer to be on guard against being baited into an argument. The bias you have when it comes to darker skinned black men being more dangerous is not based on your experience. And the people who argue that it is are fucking lying.

Hell, in the diversity groups I'm a part of, we're trying to fight the model minority stereotype. For example, Asians are often assumed to be naturally gifted at math and science and often have real problems getting the attention and help they need in schools.

This stuff is real and shooing it away like you do because it's not racism if (i) it's not intentionally evil or (ii) only happens every once in awhile with certain white people is pure denial. And it's absolutely detrimental and infuriating to the people who experience it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not arguing or playing a game here. Perhaps you see where I'm going, perhaps not. Racism as a historical phenomenon in the US is unique. It's historically been aimed at one group. How do you not dilute that unique definition by using the expansive definition that racism includes "any instance in which you have developed a bias against another based on his race." It seems like there need to be sub-definitions of racism, one of which would be "Anti-Black Racism," which would cover the unique societal elements of that particular variant we've had here.

Your attempts to avoid this through semantics are ridiculous.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm guessing their probable beliefs and actions in part based on their race. They're white, and facets of their physical appearance and their facial expressions indicate potential for aggressive and impulsive behavior. You learn to spot them when traveling through rural locales (I drive a lot).

I think assortative mating is creating a lot of white people in dire circumstances who look a lot alike. It's skin tone, posture, eyes, and a mixture of features that cause the reptile brain in my head to say, High chance of aggression, possible drug addict. Avoid. I'm not the only one who's registered this phenomenon going on in his head.

I think you're 100% full of shit. The cues you're reading in these white people are all based on clothing, car, and location. If any of these people were wearing other clothes and you crossed their paths in the city, you wouldn't think twice about them. Skin tone, posture, eyes, features, assertive mating? Fuck outta here. In rural locations the people you've described have clothes and attitudes built to send a message, if you're reading one. The levels of garbage you're willing to create to have an argument are astonishing.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's a distinction I think fixes the confusion. This was a lot of my problem with Adder's definition. When you add the power component to Racism, I think you necessarily grab its most pernicious element. Race prejudice is almost impossible to eradicate as people will always default to stereotypes on some level (Kahnemann can speak to that). Racism as a system in which a race is targeted and marginalized is curable.

Yes. But it is maintained by the group of people that benefits from it through the constant denial (explicit and personal) that it exists! That's what we're talking about when we're talking about "white fragility." The term, like "privilege," is not meant to be aggressive. It's descriptive. White people don't want to face the inherent truth in those terms, so they transform it into an insult and shift all attention to their wounds at being labeled a racist.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think you're 100% full of shit.

It's certainly to Sebby's credit that he keeps engaging on this topic. It's more than you would see from most people.

[Icky Thump]

Question.

I go to court to argue a motion this am. It was settled last night. Settling lawyer (at MY firm) didn’t tell me.

Alpha move or something else?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's certainly to Sebby's credit that he keeps engaging on this topic. It's more than you would see from most people.

Two reasons. First is the language issue I noted. I'm still trying to think of a name we should call people who truly believe other races are inferior and do things purposefully to keep other races at disadvantages. There has to be some word developed to describe these people to differentiate them from people who are simply generally racist as a result of being in a racist society. Those people do need a moniker to note the special heightened level of scorn they deserve.

Second, the views on the right and the left regarding racism are so divergent that to hear both sides, one of which is here, is fascinating. I have exposure to a number of conservatives, a number of whom are intellectuals (including Beltway sorts, and the types you'd find a National Review gathering). (Don't say there are no conservative intellectuals. That's an idiot trope and we all know it.) The views of racism you hear about in those circles are 180 degrees different than those you'd hear here. If I said things you say here there, I'd be laughed at. I avoid saying many things I hear from those sorts here because people here would laugh at those sentiments.

It's amazing to hear how far apart people can be.

On the other side of this debate are a bunch of arguments that fasten together in various ways:

-Wokeness is just victim fetishization
-Metoo, Wokeness, Democratic Socialism's emergence are signs of a declining society, with analogues in every previously collapsed society
-Metoo, Wokeness, Environmentalism are new secular religions (I agree with this to some extent, in regard to certain people - a sentiment best articulated by Alain de Botton elsewhere)
-This is all just a play for a bigger piece of the economic pie via redistribution
-Social media is connecting disenchanted people

Pinballing between these camps can render one schizophrenic. I have a natural skeptics' inclination to everything, so I find myself arguing a lot. I tend to fall more into this camp, but when I think something sounds a bit extreme, or when I think there's more of a "religious" or "movement" type of belief in a sentiment than factual proof, I can't help trying to pick apart the proponent's argument.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Question.

I go to court to argue a motion this am. It was settled last night. Settling lawyer (at MY firm) didn’t tell me.

Alpha move or something else?

You just don't count.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Two reasons. First is the language issue I noted. I'm still trying to think of a name we should call people who truly believe other races are inferior and do things purposefully to keep other races at disadvantages. There has to be some word developed to describe these people to differentiate them from people who are simply generally racist as a result of being in a racist society. Those people do need a moniker to note the special heightened level of scorn they deserve.

Second, the views on the right and the left regarding racism are so divergent that to hear both sides, one of which is here, is fascinating. I have exposure to a number of conservatives, a number of whom are intellectuals (including Beltway sorts, and the types you'd find a National Review gathering). (Don't say there are no conservative intellectuals. That's an idiot trope and we all know it.) The views of racism you hear about in those circles are 180 degrees different than those you'd hear here. If I said things you say here there, I'd be laughed at. I avoid saying many things I hear from those sorts here because people here would laugh at those sentiments.

It's amazing to hear how far apart people can be.

On the other side of this debate are a bunch of arguments that fasten together in various ways:

-Wokeness is just victim fetishization
-Metoo, Wokeness, Democratic Socialism's emergence are signs of a declining society, with analogues in every previously collapsed society
-Metoo, Wokeness, Environmentalism are new secular religions (I agree with this to some extent, in regard to certain people - a sentiment best articulated by Alain de Botton elsewhere)
-This is all just a play for a bigger piece of the economic pie via redistribution
-Social media is connecting disenchanted people

Pinballing between these camps can render one schizophrenic. I have a natural skeptics' inclination to everything, so I find myself arguing a lot. I tend to fall more into this camp, but when I think something sounds a bit extreme, or when I think there's more of a "religious" or "movement" type of belief in a sentiment than factual proof, I can't help trying to pick apart the proponent's argument.

I'm sure your "conservative" intellectual friends would read this story and laugh about the secular religious aspects of those who disagree that he was just doing his job. They're probably rooting for him without thinking they're the slightest bit racist.

Also, anyone who thinks people are fighting for a bigger piece of the economic pie is ignoring the fact that people are trying to hang on to a percentage of the piece that's been shrinking for decades.

Finally, haven't you gotten enough mileage out of the word, "trope." It's really enough already, isn't it?

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Two reasons. First is the language issue I noted. I'm still trying to think of a name we should call people who truly believe other races are inferior and do things purposefully to keep other races at disadvantages. There has to be some word developed to describe these people to differentiate them from people who are simply generally racist as a result of being in a racist society. Those people do need a moniker to note the special heightened level of scorn they deserve.

Second, the views on the right and the left regarding racism are so divergent that to hear both sides, one of which is here, is fascinating. I have exposure to a number of conservatives, a number of whom are intellectuals (including Beltway sorts, and the types you'd find a National Review gathering). (Don't say there are no conservative intellectuals. That's an idiot trope and we all know it.) The views of racism you hear about in those circles are 180 degrees different than those you'd hear here. If I said things you say here there, I'd be laughed at. I avoid saying many things I hear from those sorts here because people here would laugh at those sentiments.

It's amazing to hear how far apart people can be.

On the other side of this debate are a bunch of arguments that fasten together in various ways:

-Wokeness is just victim fetishization
-Metoo, Wokeness, Democratic Socialism's emergence are signs of a declining society, with analogues in every previously collapsed society
-Metoo, Wokeness, Environmentalism are new secular religions (I agree with this to some extent, in regard to certain people - a sentiment best articulated by Alain de Botton elsewhere)
-This is all just a play for a bigger piece of the economic pie via redistribution
-Social media is connecting disenchanted people

Pinballing between these camps can render one schizophrenic. I have a natural skeptics' inclination to everything, so I find myself arguing a lot. I tend to fall more into this camp, but when I think something sounds a bit extreme, or when I think there's more of a "religious" or "movement" type of belief in a sentiment than factual proof, I can't help trying to pick apart the proponent's argument.

One side is critical of the status quo and wants change. The other side seeks to rationalize the status quo and thus must either deny that inequity exists or justify it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm sure your "conservative" intellectual friends would read this story and laugh about the secular religious aspects of those who disagree that he was just doing his job. They're probably rooting for him without thinking they're the slightest bit racist.

Also, anyone who thinks people are fighting for a bigger piece of the economic pie is ignoring the fact that people are trying to hang on to a percentage of the piece that's been shrinking for decades.

Finally, haven't you gotten enough mileage out of the word, "trope." It's really enough already, isn't it?

TM

Oh, the right doesn't deny there's racism. I suspect almost all righties I know would express horror at this. (There'd be some dumbasses who would say dreadlocks are dangerous in wrestling, and the ref did the kid a favor, but those are the real shitheads.) The right denies there is institutional racism. It's when you say, for instance, "the justice system is racist," that they bristle. Telling them their uncle who used slurs was a racist is fine.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

One side is critical of the status quo and wants change. The other side seeks to rationalize the status quo and thus must either deny that inequity exists or justify it.

That's a fair distillation of a lot of it. But the tent you describe there has so many subcategories under it.

There's a huge rift emerging between the law n' order people and the justice reform people. Nothing is more conservative than stopping civil forfeiture, but in trying to do that, the libertarian wing of conservatives has discovered, "Hey, we're also jailing the shit out of minorities... which is both wrong and a waste of money." This position infuriates the law n' order ("tough on crime") conservatives because, as you note, it upsets the status quo structure in which they use the justice system to control minorities.

ETA: The other problem conservatives have is populism. Populism seeks to upend a status quo in which the top 20% of society enjoys the greatest gains and the other 80% fight for what's left. This gores a lot of conservatives. Moderate Democrats have the same problem. It's highly amusing to hear one's well heeled left leaning friends argue for overthrow of almost everything in the status quo... except anything which would imperil their positions. They claim to hate people like Bernie for being unrealistic. What they really hate is that Bernie has populist leanings which hint at protectionism.

I'll happily say to anyone that I don't like protectionism because it would cost me money (it has already) and I don't think it works. If it worked, if I could gain from it, I'd be for it. Liberals pretend to hate protectionism for a variety of noble reasons, but I suspect most of them hate it for the same practical and selfish reasons I dislike it.

Affluent folks from both parties talk a lot about reform, but when their livelihood becomes imperiled, they find endless reasons to preserve the portion of the status quo that keeps them fat and happy. It'd be nice if they ceased that bullshit. I include myself in this group. I can be bought. I should be better than that, but I'm not. But I'm at least above bullshitting about it.