Why are antiracists so... racist?

[Traitorfish]

The alternative is suggesting to solve racism by using more racism. That's petty divisive and will not serve any long-term good.

Abolition was divisive. Civil rights was divisive. Every step away from the abject subjugation of American blacks has been divisive, has inspired outrage from reactionaries and horror from moderates. If you insist that every step towards racial equality meet the approval of those who are fundamentally opposed to racial equality, you are going to be waiting a very long time for change to come.

 

[Akka]

You want to be willfully blind to race to the extent that you couldn't tell if racial equality has been achieved. You're hardly a strong critical thinker yourself.

You seem to be more in it for the polemics.

Says the guy who just throw inflamatory one-liners half the time

And you still fail at understanding this underlying point :

It's very important to grasp the basic concepts, because the rest flows from them. That's the difference between philosophy and religious dogma, one defining morality because it's looking for concepts and making deductions and reasonings from them, the other just blindly accepting a set of rules.

If you don't understand why something is good or bad, then first you've no legitimacy about saying if it's good or bad (it's just an argument of authority, "it's bad because I/my God/my lord/my friend/this random throw of a die/Chuck Norris says it is"), and second you're very liable to fall into the typical pit trap of all fanatics, which is to end up defending and doings things which are the polar opposite of the original idea (like religions are so prone to do).

Even for practical implementation, it's capital to get the concepts. To be consistent, to be fair to others - if you just go with your bias, you'll just implement your own brand of oppression and prejudices in the end, while thinking about the consequences of a concept makes for a universal rule applied to everyone equally.

So one last time, I'm going to spell it out for you all.

For rules to have legitimacy and to lead society where you want it to go, you need them to fit the principle on which you want society to fit. They REPRESENT the ideals. You don't twist them into something that goes opposite to said principle to "compensate", you don't build-in loopholes to be abused, you don't tailor them according to the opposite of what are supposed to defend.
If you wish to have people to be equal under the law, then you make laws to apply equally to everyone. You don't make laws to be different for different people, because that's NOT what "being under the law" means.
If you consider that something bad, then you make illegal the actions which fits the principle, you don't make schizophrenic laws which only work half the time because you want to focus on only one aspect of said principle.

THAT is critical thinking, pal. Looking at the mechanics and logic and reasoning.

Abolition was divisive. Civil rights was divisive. Every step away from the abject subjugation of American blacks has been divisive, has inspired outrage from reactionaries and horror from moderates. If you insist that every step towards racial equality meet the approval of those who are fundamentally opposed to racial equality, you are going to be waiting a very long time to change to come.

You really went out of your way to miss the point here.
He's pointing at "solving racism by using racism", so the divisiveness is obviously about, precisely, people who are supporter of racial equality, not the opposite. Which is, amusingly, pretty much exemplified by this very thread.

Of course with the habit of rewriting definitions, I guess the SJW can simply redefine "racist" as "people who disagree with me"
Scratch that, it's not that they "can", they actually already do it. Another great example of what the redefinition of words actually is done for.
Must be fun to be able to transform "these people disagree with my hypocrital double-standards" with "these *racists* obviously disagree with *anti-racism*".

 

[Senethro]

You're lost in the ideal such that you can't see the weaknesses. One of the biggest is the assumption that even if colour blindness were to be achieved and enforced magically tomorrow, then wealth would redistribute equally.

Has wealth inequality been reducing across any groups in the western world lately?

You're practically relying on a libertarian style invisible hand of the free market to do your equalizing for you. I hope you don't find that too harsh a thing to be said of you.

 

[inthesomeday]

What do you think, in your own special head, is racist about the ideas I have expressed in this thread?

 

[Akka]

You're lost in the ideal such that you can't see the weaknesses. One of the biggest is the assumption that even if colour blindness were to be achieved and enforced magically tomorrow, then wealth would redistribute equally.

I give up, you're just not even trying to understand anything.

 

[inthesomeday]

I give up, you're just not even trying to understand anything.

I think, rather, that you can't understand anything about race in America because you haven't grown up with it. There is segregation in everything, including the class issues that you (rightfully) seek to target. You seem to be disregarding the very real fact that RACE IS A SPECIFIC PART OF CLASS in America, and has been since the earliest Western societies here.

 

[Lexicus]

I think, rather, that you can't understand anything about race in America because you haven't grown up with it. There is segregation in everything, including the class issues that you (rightfully) seek to target. You seem to be disregarding the very real fact that RACE IS A SPECIFIC PART OF CLASS in America, and has been since the earliest Western societies here.

He's not intersectional bro

2) You still have this delusion that racism has a new meaning, even after been shown it's only been invented by the echo chamber of your SJW microcosm, with 95 % of the rest of humanity and the "official" definition of the word, using the actual true one.

When was this "shown", and by whom?

 

[inthesomeday]

Intersectional analysis is barely even necessary to understand that pretty basically accepted historical fact.

 

[Cutlass]

If starting conditions were the same they would by nature produce the same outcomes.

Well, no it wouldn't. Where would such a ridiculous idea come from? If you have a bunch of runners for a 1 mile race, and they all have the same starting place, does that mean that they all finish equally? No, they don't. Life is like that. Not everyone has the same speed.

That doesn't mean an equal starting position isn't desirable. But it does mean that equal outcomes do not result from equal starting positions.

[/QUOTE]Is the goal to reward individual skill? Because in a scenario of true equal opportunity I can promise the individual skill probably won't be that different. People with the same upbringing, the same education, and the same available positions and opportunities for learning will almost always do the same things because their culture and thus their values and thus their decision making is informed by the same sources.

If their personal abilities, like genetic dispositions towards certain tasks, are radically different, maybe they'll receive a different outcome. But is that a good way to run society, really? Meritocracy that punishes people for things, ultimately, out of their control?[/QUOTE]

 

[REDY]

I think that giving whites some better starting positions would make running races more competetive and interesting

 

[inthesomeday]

Well, no it wouldn't. Where would such a ridiculous idea come from? If you have a bunch of runners for a 1 mile race, and they all have the same starting place, does that mean that they all finish equally? No, they don't. Life is like that. Not everyone has the same speed.

That doesn't mean an equal starting position isn't desirable. But it does mean that equal outcomes do not result from equal starting positions.

So then your answer is yes? A meritocracy based on personal abilities, something out of people's control? This is all well and good as far as peoples placement into jobs goes but when it comes to reaping economic rewards of a society's products it becomes incredibly problematic, and ultimately is autocracy by which the strong rule the weak.

 

[innonimatu]

You're lost in the ideal such that you can't see the weaknesses. One of the biggest is the assumption that even if colour blindness were to be achieved and enforced magically tomorrow, then wealth would redistribute equally.

Has wealth inequality been reducing across any groups in the western world lately?

You're practically relying on a libertarian style invisible hand of the free market to do your equalizing for you. I hope you don't find that too harsh a thing to be said of you.

And you come across, in this reply, as being fine with maintaining the wealth inequality, just so long as the wealth are made up of a few white and a few black people, instead of a few white people. You miss the point that the problem is the inequality, not the fact that the exploiters are black, white, green or whatever.

I think, rather, that you can't understand anything about race in America because you haven't grown up with it. There is segregation in everything, including the class issues that you (rightfully) seek to target. You seem to be disregarding the very real fact that RACE IS A SPECIFIC PART OF CLASS in America, and has been since the earliest Western societies here.

Then fix that crap, instead of working towards perpetuating it! Race (the relative advantages or disadvantages, within society, of races) should never be a criteria of success in the fight against inequality. The criteria of success should be the reduction of inequalities, whatever the race, period. You don't get there by creating an exploiter class that is "mixed race" or whatever. You get there by eliminating the exploiter class, the means through which it sustains and reproduces its privileges, either to descendants of to people it co-opts into its system.

I'll give you an example, it may be necessary: the problem is not that few blacks have access to "elite universities", the problem is that "elite universities" exist at all. That the people who, by whatever reason, go to Oxbridge in the UK, to the grande écoles in France, or to Yale, Harvard and a few others in the US have a virtually guaranteed life ticket into the "elite" of the nation, and the others do not.

Or another example: you do not solve people's economic problems by giving "subsidized mortgages" to "minorities", that only forced them into a subservient position within the economic system. You might instead try thinking about public housing on a grand scale.

 

[Senethro]

And you come across, in this reply, as being fine with maintaining the wealth inequality, just so long as the wealth are made up of a few white and a few black people, instead of a few white people. You miss the point that the problem is the inequality, not the fact that the exploiters are black, white, green or whatever.

There are at least two problems in the scenario scenario. I'd like both confronted and I think colourblindness acknowledges only one and solves neither. I don't think it has a track record and I don't see what additional avenues it opens.



As for the terminology debate, I could go for racism being a category of things, racially motivated personal prejudice as what happens between people and institutional racism being what the american justice system does. They are separate things in need of their own descriptions and calling them all simply racism loses nuance.

 

[inthesomeday]

Y'all got me mixed up as some kind of liberal. I know affirmative action doesn't change anything. I also know that you can't address class while ignoring race.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Logical "gotcha" from someone totally uninterested in solving the actual problem.

The irony of that statement is amazing.

No, because I reject your premise that 'colorblind policy' and 'non-racist society' are identical.

Colorblind policy by itself won't eliminate racism, but it prevents racism in policy.

It is impossible to enforce while still maintaining precepts of liberalism in the legal system.

Legal system could use a lot of help in due process, sentencing gaps between populations, plea bargain extortion, etc. Whatever precept it claims, it isn't that, because no institution would call itself what the legal system actually is.

its such an archaic idea on this topic that it makes sense with the old obsolete colloquial usage of the word racism.

The concept that people are treated the same way given the same scenario being "archaic" is comical.

ou want to be willfully blind to race to the extent that you couldn't tell if racial equality has been achieved.

Surely we're at a level of technology that we could conceive a way to track outcomes to make sure policy aligns with its intent...and have been for our entire lives.

It'd be nice if such outcome measures were reliable and consistent between sources too.

Abolition was divisive. Civil rights was divisive. Every step away from the abject subjugation of American blacks has been divisive, has inspired outrage from reactionaries and horror from moderates.

Okay. I'll concede that and point out that Nazism and Stalin were also divisive to reject any implications that this statement is useful to the discussion on either side. I should have left it out since it doesn't add anything.

It doesn't change the reality that adding racism to racism does not make the situation better or less racist.

One of the biggest is the assumption that even if colour blindness were to be achieved and enforced magically tomorrow, then wealth would redistribute equally.

Nobody stated such an assumption. Wealth isn't evenly distributed within a single race (or even a single race/gender combination), between geographic regions, between countries, or between many other categories you can pick. Why would eliminating racism change that?

It's a tangential assertion outside the scope of this thread.

This is all well and good as far as peoples placement into jobs goes but when it comes to reaping economic rewards of a society's products it becomes incredibly problematic, and ultimately is autocracy by which the strong rule the weak.

At the theoretical level, if someone is actually producing more than another person, it is reasonable for that person to have more stuff. If you actually managed some super equal opportunity system where individuals acquired wealth solely by their own merit, there's no established rationale for more productivity affording an individual more wealth than less productive individuals being a problem.

Reality doesn't allow that kind of system though, human nature is too willing to take resources by force...using socially acceptable/legal means or not. A strong case can be made to help people without means to help themselves...who are so damaged that they never actually had that opportunity.

Failing that, if you want resources you work for them.

'll give you an example, it may be necessary: the problem is not that few blacks have access to "elite universities", the problem is that "elite universities" exist at all.

They're private networking facilities and have been for ages. They're so far from the root cause that they're barely worth considering.

Maybe I'm just being a little bitter though because my opinion of how colleges are currently set up in general in the US is pretty low.

They are separate things in need of their own descriptions and calling them all simply racism loses nuance.

Yes, manifestation of systemic bias and targeted choices by individuals are different things. Both can be measured, punished, and incentivized against if acted upon though.

 

[Ryika]

One of the biggest is the assumption that even if colour blindness were to be achieved and enforced magically tomorrow, then wealth would redistribute equally.

If color blindness were to be achieved and enforced tomorrow, then there would still be more poor black people than there are poor white people. But is this a problem? I do not see why it would be in a society where people are not judged by their skin color. And even if it is a "problem", then this problem could still be solved by colorblind policies that specifically target poor people.

Also note that what you're arguing for is basically that a poor, white person has less of a "right" to get out of poverty than a poor, black person because because there are already more white people in the middle and at the top of society. Would you say that into his face? Put a white person and a black person next to each other, point at the white person and say: "I don't want you to be able to work your way out of poverty, because you're in the way of the racial distribution that I want to achieve."?

Doesn't sound racist at all, does it?

As for the terminology debate, I could go for racism being a category of things, racially motivated personal prejudice as what happens between people and institutional racism being what the american justice system does. They are separate things in need of their own descriptions and calling them all simply racism loses nuance.

The distinction is already there. Prejudice against people because of their skin color - any skin color - is called racism, racism that is perpetuated by the state and institutions is called systemic racism. That's how the words are used, that how they words were used in the past. The only context where you turn "systemic racism" into "racism" is when your job is all about analyzing how structures are or are not racist. That's when you re-define "systemic racism" to be "racism", purely for convenience, because both definitions can never collide in that context and the "systemic" part can be left out. Trying to now bring this new definition that is only useful in a certain context into the public discourse is nonsensical if your goal is really to differentiate between the two, it only makes sense if you want people to stop thinking that black people can be racist, too.

You're again trying to change the meaning of words here.

 

[inthesomeday]

Colorblind policy by itself won't eliminate racism, but it prevents racism in policy.

How about the many policies already in place that already form and enforce racism? Suddenly starting to create new legislation along colorblind lines doesn't make these policies go away, this can only be dealt with by handling racism head-on.

The concept that people are treated the same way given the same scenario being "archaic" is comical.

The real comedy is if you think that's what colorblind policy achieves.

At the theoretical level, if someone is actually producing more than another person, it is reasonable for that person to have more stuff. If you actually managed some super equal opportunity system where individuals acquired wealth solely by their own merit, there's no established rationale for more productivity affording an individual more wealth than less productive individuals being a problem.

Theoretically, perhaps not, but practically there are all these issues:

1. Usually in IRL society the producer of a product is alienated from this product by the concept of "ownership", by which whatever capitalist who claims ownership over the means by which the producer produces the product. This results in the messy reality where people who actually have contributed nothing to the production process get to pretend they own the product afterward, and are likewise rewarded by capitalism as though they built it themselves.
2. If the necessity of some is not fulfilled by their ability to produce, they will literally die unless this necessity is supplemented by the product of the collective society. This is a pretty natural and encouragable function of society on the whole, one I think we can agree on.
3. I would certainly argue as well that economic collectivism should be encouraged, with social individualism on the other axis. This means, while personal freedoms are respected and enforced to a great degree, I believe that the products of any society should be collectively owned by the society that produces them.

Reality doesn't allow that kind of system though, human nature is too willing to take resources by force...using socially acceptable/legal means or not. A strong case can be made to help people without means to help themselves...who are so damaged that they never actually had that opportunity.

In a good society one hopes thievery would and could be prevented by the people.

Failing that, if you want resources you work for them.

Until of course that (very near, should we play our cards right) point at which resources are so plentiful and their production is mechanized that they no longer require human labor to produce.

 

[Senethro]

If color blindness were to be achieved and enforced tomorrow, then there would still be more poor black people than there are poor white people. But is this a problem? I do not see why it would be in a society where people are not judged by their skin color. And even if it is a "problem", then this problem could still be solved by colorblind policies that specifically target poor people.

Also note that what you're arguing for is basically that a poor, white person has less of a "right" to get out of poverty than a poor, black person because because there are already more white people in the middle and at the top of society. Would you say that into his face? Put a white person and a black person next to each other, point at the white person and say: "I don't want you to be able to work your way out of poverty, because you're in the way of the racial distribution that I want to achieve."?

Doesn't sound racist at all, does it?

Yes it would be a problem because wealth is sticky.

And your 2nd paragraph is just ridiculous. It could have been written by that guy saying that anti-racist is code for anti-white, if he got a little help with structure.

Please consider yourself informed that I'm also against murder and the consumption of human flesh. What else do you assume I'm in favour of?

The distinction is already there. Prejudice against people because of their skin color - any skin color - is called racism, racism that is perpetuated by the state and institutions is called systemic racism. That's how the words are used, that how they words were used in the past. The only context where you turn "systemic racism" into "racism" is when your job is all about analyzing how structures are or are not racist. That's when you re-define "systemic racism" to be "racism", purely for convenience, because both definitions can never collide in that context and the "systemic" part can be left out. Trying to now bring this new definition that is only useful in a certain context into the public discourse is nonsensical if your goal is really to differentiate between the two, it only makes sense if you want people to stop thinking that black people can be racist, too.

You're again trying to change the meaning of words here.

No sinister plot here, I was offering a suggestion not requiring conformity. I don't actually care what the terminology is so long as it is sufficiently nuanced, I'm just bored of the dictionary derails.

 

[Lexicus]

The irony of that statement is amazing.

I don't see how. ITT you've demonstrated zero interest in anything but pointing out the failings of actual working measures to lessen the problem.

It doesn't change the reality that adding racism to racism does not make the situation better or less racist.

So let's get right down to it. Race-based affirmative action in, for example, college admissions, leading to a higher proportion of black college students, according to you "does not make the situation better or less racist"? I don't think we should take seriously your ideas of how to make the situation better or less racist, then.

I'll concede that and point out that Nazism and Stalin were also divisive to reject any implications that this statement is useful to the discussion on either side.

No one is assigning a positive value to "divisive," TFish pointed out what he pointed out to refute your use of "divisive" as a necessarily damning factor. All social progress is "divisive," this doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Y'all got me mixed up as some kind of liberal. I know affirmative action doesn't change anything. I also know that you can't address class while ignoring race.

I think it's kind of a slap in the face of all the people who have benefited from affirmative action to say it doesn't change anything. It doesn't make the kind of structural changes we'd like, but it does improve things and that's worth fighting for, even if white women have been the main beneficiaries.

 

[Ryika]

Yes it would be a problem because wealth is sticky.

That's a problem of class, not race.

And your 2nd paragraph is just ridiculous. It could have been written by that guy saying that anti-racist is code for anti-white, if he got a little help with structure.

Please consider yourself informed that I'm also against murder and the consumption of human flesh. What else do you assume I'm in favour of?

Yeah, but that's what is required to achieve the goal of equal outcome, you have to discriminate and keep people from the group that is ahead from achieving purely on the basis of the fact that they're part of the group that is currently as a whole ahead of the curve, otherwise you literally can't equalize things.

You either still have not understood that, or you just want to have your cake and eat it, too.