Why are antiracists so... racist?

[Hygro]

Yes, and it's already been answered in several threads.

Man, we had a good dialogue on it a while back but the thread got closed right before our build up to the sneeze resulted in the sneeze. It hasn't been answered:

I haven't seen you drive a stake through The Point, which is that racists will be racist without talk of racism, and that institutional racism will continue with or without discussion of racism. Your argument was that if you use race based thinking/policies to address racism, you are perpetuating racism. We argue that creating a controlled burn to stop a forest fire is not perpetuating a forest fire, it is using the tool to fit the problem.

Ergo, if you reprimand racists (to a point), and find where a race frame correlates highly to a widespread inequity and then give it a specific fix or counterweight, see how it goes and phase it out once its served its purpose, you are reducing the negative impact of racism, ergo reducing racism. You would not be increasing racism simply because you have (temporarily, even if multigenerational) increased the number of third party people (us white non-racists) who are asked to work with race-framing to correct race-harms.


Regarding extremism, to use a left and right example, I think @civver_764 and @inthesomeday both have extreme views and have some anchors to their views that are outside of thinking about them "in moderation", but have found both to be pretty open minded to reading countering opinions, and have been willing to seek dialogue with a crowd not super friendly to their deep-in-the-wings positions. I don't think it's appropriate to call them moderates even when they are being reasonable in their quests for the truth.

 

[Ryika]

Regarding extremism, to use a left and right example, I think @civver_764 and @inthesomeday both have extreme views and have some anchors to their views that are outside of thinking about them "in moderation", but have found both to be pretty open minded to reading countering opinions, and have been willing to seek dialogue with a crowd not super friendly to their deep-in-the-wings positions. I don't think it's appropriate to call them moderates even when they are being reasonable in their quests for the truth.

Taking part in dialog doesn't mean anything though, you have to also be willing to consider the arguments that are brought forward, and be willing to change your mind on that basis. A Christian who believes with deep conviction that Earth is only 6000 years old might be very willing to enter dialog with a person who things the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but then just flat-out ignore all the arguments the opposing side brings and try to push their biblical "truths".

Don't know about civver_764, but in my opinion, inthesomeday has demonstrated that sort of behavior in the "Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?"-thread, where yeah, he engages in discussions, but does so not from a position of open-mindedness, but rather with a conviction that his views are right. The moment people bring an argument that he can't just hand-wave away, he either ignores it in favor of other posts that he has an easier time engaging with, or starts making sarcastic remarks.

A moderate would look at those arguments that go counter to their current position on the topic and think about why they can't dismantle them, then either realize that there's a flaw in their current position, or find a flaw in the argument that wasn't obvious at first. Well, in theory at least, in reality, moderates can of course also hold dogmatic views on some topics because nobody is perfect.

 

[Akka]

I haven't seen you drive a stake through The Point, which is that racists will be racist without talk of racism, and that institutional racism will continue with or without discussion of racism. Your argument was that if you use race based thinking/policies to address racism, you are perpetuating racism. We argue that creating a controlled burn to stop a forest fire is not perpetuating a forest fire, it is using the tool to fit the problem.

Ergo, if you reprimand racists (to a point), and find where a race frame correlates highly to a widespread inequity and then give it a specific fix or counterweight, see how it goes and phase it out once its served its purpose, you are reducing the negative impact of racism, ergo reducing racism. You would not be increasing racism simply because you have (temporarily, even if multigenerational) increased the number of third party people (us white non-racists) who are asked to work with race-framing to correct race-harms.

First, reducing the impact of racism doesn't reduce racism, the same way as fixing the broken bones of a beaten child won't change the amount of beating he's receiving at home.
If members of race X tend to have 20 % less revenues than others due to racism, giving all of them 20 % of their revenue paid from the taxes, would reduce the impact of racism at least in the short term, but I highly doubt it would reduce actual racism (probably the opposite in fact).

Anyway, the problem with the counterfire analogy is that it... simply doesn't work. Racism is not a tool, it's what you're supposed to fight, and it's a battle of ideas, not a physical one. A "controlled fire" to "fight a fire" make sense as a concrete phenomenon, but it's nonsensical as an analogy. I don't remember the last time that using hate against hate magically made love appear.

Race-based policy means "we're going to treat you according to your race" - how can you reconcile that with "racism should be fought" is something I still can't fathom. If you're using it yourself, on which moral standing can you preach to others not to do the same ?
Samely, how can you hope that people will stop seeing others as "another race" when you not only constantly talk about, but actually ACT on it ?
"races are stupid, races don't exist, you shouldn't see your neighbour through the race prism ! And to ensure that, we're going to treat you all based on your race !"
It just... doesn't make sense.

Regarding extremism, to use a left and right example, I think @civver_764 and @inthesomeday both have extreme views and have some anchors to their views that are outside of thinking about them "in moderation", but have found both to be pretty open minded to reading countering opinions, and have been willing to seek dialogue with a crowd not super friendly to their deep-in-the-wings positions. I don't think it's appropriate to call them moderates even when they are being reasonable in their quests for the truth.

Valessa answered like I would have, which save me some typing efforts !

 

[Senethro]

Thats your criticism of other peoples offered solution that you've posted many times previously.

What is your own solution?

 

[Akka]

Thats your criticism of other peoples offered solution that you've posted many times previously.

=>

Yes, and it's already been answered in several threads.

It's nearly like I already pointed this.

Not that it's any less valid through repetition, BTW.

What is your own solution?

You manage to, in the very same message, complain about the fact I repost something I already posted in the past, and ask me to repost something I already posted in the past ?

 

[inthesomeday]

Akka, are you of the opinion then that institutional racism will be fixed by just sitting everybody down and having a nice talk about how we're all human? Because we've tried that and it turns out the opinions of policy makers really aren't solid enough to combat. Believe it or not most people would reckon that institutional racism comes from institutions and that it can only be meaningfully combatted in those institutions.

 

[Senethro]

=>

It's nearly like I already pointed this.

Not that it's any less valid through repetition, BTW.

You manage to, in the very same message, complain about the fact I repost something I already posted in the past, and ask me to repost something I already posted in the past ?

Mmmmm. Still having problems communicating here.

We're asking for a model of action for dealing with what you might call "first order racists", i.e. nazis, white supremacists etc.

Instead you are posting your critique of what you could call "second order racists", which is supposedly what "SJWs" and anyone acting against first order racists without abiding by your "colour blind" views are.

Perhaps we need a communication calibration here. Could you please respond with what you think we are asking for debugging purposes. And if you could do so without all the theatrical sighing about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is, that would be respectful of our time.

 

[caketastydelish]

They would be bankrupt because Northern countries like Germany enouraged them to develop artificially-inflated economies to provide a market for cheap manufactured goods, which simultaneously undermined their own manufacturing base, meaning that when this inflated economy collapsed, these countries were plunged into material poverty. They created a situation of economic dependency, which they manipulated for their own benefit; that's the very definition of economic imperialism.

I'm not sure about this. Being in the EU is voluntary and not being forced against their will. The richer in the EU keep bailing out the poorer countries, this much cannot be denied. In any case, "economic imperialism" in a small geographical area close to you is nowhere near the damage the United States does on a global stage. I already admitted that nobody is perfect, only that the United States is by far doing the most damage to the point of no comparison to any other single country.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure about this. Being in the EU is voluntary and not being forced against their will. The richer in the EU keep bailing out the poorer countries, this much cannot be denied.

The question is not the EU, but how its mechanisms have been exploited.

Northern Europe did not bale out Southern Europe for the good of Southern Europeans. It did so for its own good, to prevent its own unsteady manufacturing sector stable. The Greeks would, for the most part, prefer healthcare and education to German export-goods, but the EU has instructed otherwise.

 

[Hygro]

Taking part in dialog doesn't mean anything though, you have to also be willing to consider the arguments that are brought forward, and be willing to change your mind on that basis. A Christian who believes with deep conviction that Earth is only 6000 years old might be very willing to enter dialog with a person who things the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but then just flat-out ignore all the arguments the opposing side brings and try to push their biblical "truths".

Don't know about civver_764, but in my opinion, inthesomeday has demonstrated that sort of behavior in the "Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?"-thread, where yeah, he engages in discussions, but does so not from a position of open-mindedness, but rather with a conviction that his views are right. The moment people bring an argument that he can't just hand-wave away, he either ignores it in favor of other posts that he has an easier time engaging with, or starts making sarcastic remarks.

A moderate would look at those arguments that go counter to their current position on the topic and think about why they can't dismantle them, then either realize that there's a flaw in their current position, or find a flaw in the argument that wasn't obvious at first. Well, in theory at least, in reality, moderates can of course also hold dogmatic views on some topics because nobody is perfect.

I take into account age, ideological starting point, and the time it takes someone to digest information and how much information can be digested at once. What I see is someone considering (times age, ideological distance, rate of forum-goer-adjustment) the "actual material" with an open mind. it's just that the material to ITSD is so far from his current position it all sounds too wild to him, and offensive. Maybe I'm too optimistic in my qualifiers. Meanwhile, Akka, pretty moderate, also comes from a conviction that his views are right.

First, reducing the impact of racism doesn't reduce racism, the same way as fixing the broken bones of a beaten child won't change the amount of beating he's receiving at home.
If members of race X tend to have 20 % less revenues than others due to racism, giving all of them 20 % of their revenue paid from the taxes, would reduce the impact of racism at least in the short term, but I highly doubt it would reduce actual racism (probably the opposite in fact).

Anyway, the problem with the counterfire analogy is that it... simply doesn't work. Racism is not a tool, it's what you're supposed to fight, and it's a battle of ideas, not a physical one. A "controlled fire" to "fight a fire" make sense as a concrete phenomenon, but it's nonsensical as an analogy. I don't remember the last time that using hate against hate magically made love appear.

Race-based policy means "we're going to treat you according to your race" - how can you reconcile that with "racism should be fought" is something I still can't fathom. If you're using it yourself, on which moral standing can you preach to others not to do the same ?
Samely, how can you hope that people will stop seeing others as "another race" when you not only constantly talk about, but actually ACT on it ?
"races are stupid, races don't exist, you shouldn't see your neighbour through the race prism ! And to ensure that, we're going to treat you all based on your race !"
It just... doesn't make sense.

You're defining racism as treating someone different via race, which can be consequential but can also be trivial. I'm defining racism as oppression against a group of people by race. Therefore, reducing racial oppression is reducing meaningful racism. Who cares if some random guy is saying mean things as long as it's a lone jerk. However we should all care if a group of people are being arrested at a different rate because of prejudice, sentenced longer because of prejudice, or if stereotypes of poverty are reinforced by actual rates of race-correlated poverty, which come from a past of race-correlated opportunity.

And when we come from a culture where as little kids we get a lot of our identity and aspirations from media, having representation of different types of people by different types of people (so no absence of X-people, no X-people are always the Y-guy) allows for more diversity of types of people.

Most people who claim to be negatively affected by racism aren't trying to eliminate their racial identity, because that's a part of how they got here and now. So that's not the goal. It's not my place or your place to make that their goal in the quest to end racism. This is to say your focus on what "doesn't make sense" is a red herring to begin with.


A racism-reducing minded policy can be many things. But shared among them is the goal for long term power-parity for the individuals within that group. If you can have a policy that correlates to the people oppressed by some institutional phenomenon, that counteracts that oppression or fixes it, you used race in your analysis and reduced racism. You have used the fire of race-as-category to combat the deleterious effects of the wildfire of racism. There's no promise of a lush rainforest taking its place, just as hating hate doesn't create love. Ending racism won't create love either, as canceling a bad thing doesn't make a good thing. So why set that standard? It does however, allow good, and other things, to take its place. It gives that room.

 

[Akka]

Akka, are you of the opinion then that institutional racism will be fixed by just sitting everybody down and having a nice talk about how we're all human? Because we've tried that and it turns out the opinions of policy makers really aren't solid enough to combat. Believe it or not most people would reckon that institutional racism comes from institutions and that it can only be meaningfully combatted in those institutions.

I'm of the opinion that if you want to fight an ideology, it's because of principles, and then to win you stick to these principles, you don't give them up to use the ideology you're supposed to fight against.
Ponder why you think racism is bad - the root concept, not the general superficial consequences.
If your solutions imply to violate this principle, then your solutions invalidate the very reason why you fight this ideology to begin with.

Mmmmm. Still having problems communicating here.

We're asking for a model of action for dealing with what you might call "first order racists", i.e. nazis, white supremacists etc.

I've explicited my opinion about nazi and free speech and the like on different thread, but to sum it up :

- I'm not a believer of absolute free speech, so I have no problem with restriction on free speech as long as it's based on something that is objective and verifiable - in France we have, for example, laws forbidding revisionism and incitement to violence.
- I don't have a philosophical problem with vigilante justice or revenge. I have, on the other hand, a pretty big practical problem with it.
- I have an extreme suspicion about people who self-appoint to be judge, jury and executioner. As I've explained quite a bit these past days, fanatics are dangerous due to how they think, not what they think. The countless historical communist failures are a pretty great example that the nobility of the ideology has little to do with the practical results.

Instead you are posting your critique of what you could call "second order racists", which is supposedly what "SJWs" and anyone acting against first order racists without abiding by your "colour blind" views are.

It's explained by the points above, about fanaticism and not betraying the underlying principles. SJW are guilty of both.
Also by plain common sense and counter-effective practices.

Perhaps we need a communication calibration here. Could you please respond with what you think we are asking for debugging purposes.

I've no problem with the claimed goal (end racism).
What I've problems with, is with the methods (I think I already listed quite a lot of them), their consequences (being counter-productive and tearing the attention away from the more core problems of class inequality, corporate power rising and basic human rights being eroded) and many of the common premises which I fundamentally disagree with (like the contempt of cultural norms or nations).

And if you could do so without all the theatrical sighing about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is, that would be respectful of our time.

I don't think I need lessons about respect from you lot. It's not because you managed to be polite for a few messages after monthes of fly-by piques without substances that you can suddendly pretend to school me about appropriate behaviour.

 

[Akka]

Meanwhile, Akka, pretty moderate, also comes from a conviction that his views are right.

Obviously. I mean, if I defend a position with conviction, it's because I think it's the right one (I also do play the Devil's Advocate to poke hole into sloppy reasoning, because I don't like sloppy reasoning, but that's not the same as defending a position).

You're defining racism as treating someone different via race, which can be consequential but can also be trivial.

No, it's not trivial. It's the fundamental concept. It's the core idea, and it's from it that everything else flows.
If you play loose with it, then you destroy the very reason why racism is considered bad to begin with, and as such all "corrective actions" lose their legitimacy.

I'm defining racism as oppression against a group of people by race.

And that's just rewriting the word and voiding it from all meaning. If a bunch of green people kill someone because he's a blue, and they hate blue people, it's racism. It absolutely doesn't matter if it's the green or blue who are oppressed.

Therefore, reducing racial oppression is reducing meaningful racism. Who cares if some random guy is saying mean things as long as it's a lone jerk. However we should all care if a group of people are being arrested at a different rate because of prejudice, sentenced longer because of prejudice, or if stereotypes of poverty are reinforced by actual rates of race-correlated poverty, which come from a past of race-correlated opportunity.

No, if we don't care that green people want to hurt blue people because they don't like blue people, then we shouldn't care that blue people shoot green people because they don't like green people. If you accept hate one way but not the other, what you're doing is textbook racism - you consider that it's fair to treat someone badly due to his race.

A racism-reducing minded policy can be many things. But shared among them is the goal for long term power-parity for the individuals within that group.

If it's fine to treat people differently according to their race, why should we aim for power parity ? Why not just oppress and benefit from it ?
Where does come the moral imperative

(before some idiot gets excited, this is Socratic dialectic, thanks)

If you can have a policy that correlates to the people oppressed by some institutional phenomenon, that counteracts that oppression or fixes it, you used race in your analysis and reduced racism. You have used the fire of race-as-category to combat the deleterious effects of the wildfire of racism. There's no promise of a lush rainforest taking its place, just as hating hate doesn't create love. Ending racism won't create love either, as canceling a bad thing doesn't make a good thing. So why set that standard? It does however, allow good, and other things, to take its place. It gives that room.

I obviously disagree with that. You're just stocking the fire, not making a counter-fire, and you just lost the moral battle by using what you fight.

 

[inthesomeday]

I'm of the opinion that if you want to fight an ideology, it's because of principles, and then to win you stick to these principles, you don't give them up to use the ideology you're supposed to fight against.

What does this mean? Be more specific.

Ponder why you think racism is bad - the root concept, not the general superficial consequences.

Well, racism is institutional oppression based on racial characteristics. I think that's wrong because I'm opposed to oppression in any way.

If your solutions imply to violate this principle, then your solutions invalidate the very reason why you fight this ideology to begin with.

My solution is to destroy the institutions that impose the oppression.

I've explicited my opinion about nazi and free speech and the like on different thread, but to sum it up :

- I'm not a believer of absolute free speech, so I have no problem with restriction on free speech as long as it's based on something that is objective and verifiable - in France we have, for example, laws forbidding revisionism and incitement to violence.

So then you oppose Nazi speech protected as free speech? Considering that Nazi ideology is based on revisionism about human biology and world history that somehow portrays straight white people as genetically superior as well as socially and historically oppressed by Jewish people, and is defined by the incitement to violence against POC, ethnic minorities, queer folks, and the like.

- I don't have a philosophical problem with vigilante justice or revenge. I have, on the other hand, a pretty big practical problem with it.

Why bother

- I have an extreme suspicion about people who self-appoint to be judge, jury and executioner.

Why is it any different from someone else appointing this position?

As I've explained quite a bit these past days, fanatics are dangerous due to how they think, not what they think.

This is so so hilarious it ought to go on memes about the political compass. What on earth would make you think that?

The countless historical communist failures...

Name some, I'd love to debunk labeling them as Communist as well as that they were failures.

...are a pretty great example that the nobility of the ideology has little to do with the practical results.

A noble ideology that has little to do with practical results? Surely you're referring to live and let live liberal centrism?

It's explained by the points above, about fanaticism and not betraying the underlying principles. SJW are guilty of both.
Also by plain common sense and counter-effective practices.

So you hate SJWs because they are "fanatics" (aka someone Akka disagrees with) and because they... What's this bit about underlying principles again? I don't really get it still.

I've no problem with the claimed goal (end racism).
What I've problems with, is with the methods (I think I already listed quite a lot of them), their consequences (being counter-productive and tearing the attention away from the more core problems of class inequality, corporate power rising and basic human rights being eroded) and many of the common premises which I fundamentally disagree with (like the contempt of cultural norms or nations).

The methods? As in correctly labeling racism? How is that counterproductive? I agree that capitalism is bad, but if you can't recognize that racism is, at least on Earth, a big part of capitalism and its development, you seriously need to re-examine world history and economics.

 

[Akka]

You expect me to answer this post, when the trouncing makes it impossible to follow and most of the content is just snarling and purposedly missing the points ?

 

[Perfection]

The poll seems a tad slanted.

I voted for the second option purely to spite OP

 

[inthesomeday]

You expect me to answer this post, when the trouncing makes it impossible to follow and most of the content is just snarling and purposedly missing the points ?

Okay let's do it. Why do I think racial prejudice is bad? Well, because I don't think people should be mean to each other. How do I intend to combat racial prejudice? By dismantling the institutions that even apply to the ultimately meaningless features of biological race ideals and stereotypes. How this is a form of being mean to somebody escapes me.

 

[Hygro]

And that's just rewriting the word and voiding it from all meaning.

Voiding it from all meaning.... holy reactive hyperbole, Batman. I'll do you a solid and try again later.

Here's the trailer: Of course it has meaning. It has actionable meaning. Material meaning.

The meaning that matters for doing things and fixing problems.

Okay let's do it. Why do I think racial prejudice is bad? Well, because I don't think people should be mean to each other. How do I intend to combat racial prejudice? By dismantling the institutions that even apply to the ultimately meaningless features of biological race ideals and stereotypes. How this is a form of being mean to somebody escapes me.

When I was 12, the vacuum used to stress me out a lot. I just didn't trust others not to vacuum up the things I had on the floor, and I was too tired to pick things up. Only by reducing my unwellness (measured at that time in illness on one axis and depression on the other) was I back to not worrying that I was at risk of loss every time the vacuum turned on. I think the people worried about restructuring with racial power balance in mind are worried that we aren't just going to suck up the dirt, but take their Lego pieces with it.

Remember, pain is felt worse than gain feels good. Let this relate to the "titration" clue that @El Machinae left earier.

 

[inthesomeday]

Akka I assure you that I do not intend to impose racism against white people and I will likewise fight to the death anyone who tries to. Right now there's zero legitimate threat of that, though, and racism exists in a very specific and one-sided way, so I fight to the death for the other direction.

 

[ToothedBomb]

I do not intend to impose racism against white people

You've already established that you have a very unique definition for the word "racism" in another thread, so your statement doesn't really count for much.

 

[Hygro]

You've already established that you have a very unique definition for the word "racism" in another thread, so your statement doesn't really count for much.

"A very unique definition".

I suppose each dollar in your pocket is very unique from one another too?