I think the better question is why do people think racism is wrong, but bias of an entire group of people based on their political/personal beliefs is okay.
That's such a transparent strawman. The point is that a judgement has merit solely based on its justification, not on its syntactic form.
I don't think you can justify prejudice against Jews. People who think they can often use epistemological frameworks I find, to be frank, stupid. At the end of the day, we can judge ideas based on their content, their meaning. The idea that this is equivalent to an irrational judgement, like one based on skin color, is what I am attacking here.
Okay, so If I decided to not hire any liberals or anyone that supported gay marriage...and got big companies on board, this would be acceptable to you? You can always change your beliefs......
Racism is not just a personal characteristic. It's an ideology. Any analysis that does not examine how racism had been embedded in media and enshrined in law throughout history is weak. People are less racist in America today than when it was the law that black people couldn't use the same facilities white people did. Just an example. We are strongly influenced by our environment. Propaganda works. Coherent ideologies define our mental frameworks even when they don't call attention to themselves.
This essay, to me, embodies the Liberal (as in Liberalism) conception of racial politics. The Liberal conception of anything is usually neutered of radical, transformative potential.
Racism in America is made up by liberals? Come on... I hate when politics are discussed on Hacker News, but that is just blatantly untrue. I'm a white guy and I've been to the South and the Midwest. I've definitely heard middle-class/normal white people say extremely racist things. It's not a boogeyman. Just look at Trump's campaign--there's a ton of racist dog whistling going on.
That is an ok thing to desire. Personally, I would find living in a homogenous community preferable. I want a peaceful life, among reasonable people who moderate themselves. I am tired of conflict, and having to tolerate those who impose their beliefs on others and me.
Diversity is a social problem not a cause for celebration IMHO. Is it wrong to want this?
That just measures the stigma of being openly racist in a country. It is well known that when you measure racial bias in countries like the USA with indirect questions, the reported bias is much higher.
It's not a liberal conspiracy and it's really insulting to pretend like millions of Americans who report being subject to prejudice on a frequent basis are delusional because most Americans are embarrassed by their racial biases.
As someone from the south east, it is no boogeyman. But I do agree that we are much better off than many of the country examples from that article.
In my experience in the SE, most individuals themselves aren't directly racist to any other given individual of color (aside from very specific stereotypes), but they propagate racism through their actions/policies they support/group think with others who feel similarly.
Slavery in the US was not a liberal conspiracy. People from the South were ready to die for essentially a racist system. They were not liberals. Jim Crow laws were not passed by liberals. Voting restrictions (e.g. fake literacy tests and jellybean guessing) was not a conspiracy either. Discrimination on AirBnB and Uber exists. Liberals aren't making that up. Bogeymen - now they aren't real. Racism - that shit's real bro.
We are asked to reject racism on the basis that it is is the blind hatred of people based on their race.
But then we are told that what we have rejected is not in fact the blind hatred of people based on their race. In fact, racism (which we reject, right?) is a system of power and privilege with a strange resemblance to the structural oppression described in Das Kapital. And even the most innocent expression of Whiteness (like pumpkin spice lattes) could be a form of racism.
And to top it off, at the same time as we are asked to reject the form of structural oppression known as Whiteness, we are asked to celebrate the inherent value in all other cultures[1].
People are racist because humans evolved as tribal social animals, and so we are all extremely good at playing ingroup v. outgroup. Race just happens to be a very visible way to define groups. Defining it as a moral issue just leads people to try to beat it with shame, or other racism. Both are doomed to fail.
You don't think that "playing ingroup v. outgroup" is a moral issue? I think it is, whether the groups are defined by race, language, religion, gender, or choice of political party.
I don't think treating it as a moral issue is a useful way to fix the problem. If anyone wants to demonstrate some evidence that it works, I'll change my mind. All I've seen is a coarsening of discourse and a lot of finger-wagging to little effect.
Moralizing at racists is not effective. They are already in an us-vs-them mindset, so an attack on their character just amps up those instincts. (When have attacks on character ever been an effective means of persuasion?)
I don't think it's a moral issue any more than our natural urge to defecate without using toilets is a moral issue. It has impacts on other things that are moral issues, but there's very little sense I can see in treating people's thoughts and feelings as evil.
I would argue that people largely act consistently with how they think. If the actions are immoral, there are thoughts that they come out of.
(You also could be arguing that nothing is evil, because everything is the product of evolution, and morals do not exist. If that's your position, then I think it's mistaken, but I recognize that I am not answering it with this post.)
I'll agree that morals exist, but they exist largely as things we indoctrinate children to believe without question. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing (or a good thing). I'm saying it's not a useful method to change an adult's behavior.
> I'm saying it's not a useful method to change an adult's behavior.
I disagree. I think the only thing that really changes adult behavior is showing them that their behavior violates moral standards that they agree with. (Well, or that it's financially better for them to change...)
Or if you can get them laid. Or a whole hell of a lot of other incentives. Humans are suckers for bullshit incentives. Just see how thoroughly the notion of "achievements" has taken over gaming for one instance.
Moralizing is fairly effective if someone already classifies you as part of the in-group. That's how social stigma works, and generally how racism was broken in the US.
With the advent of TV, many people could see the effects of racism first-hand and could no longer justify it to themselves. Their disapproval was fairly effective at getting the more hardline members of their community to moderate their actions.
In Virginia for example, traveling Klan members found themselves suddenly unwelcome in small towns, since either (a) cyncially no small town wanted to be the next one on the news as a lynching ground, or (b) small towners were legitimately disgusted by the seeing children beaten up for no other reason than their skin colour.
I think the author got that part right. They mention that racism feels good and that's partly because of what you said. It's a wiring quirk in the reptilian brain.
Not really. It's in there because ... it works. One of the main things that our brain does is predicting behavior based on visible stimuli, and so we make assumptions about behavior based on lots of things. 140cm high ? Odds of NBA player seem slim. Skin color X -> behavior Y.
Which then leads to countermoves to compensate for behavior before it occurs. Think of it as a way to solve the prisoner's dilemma without getting screwed on the first play, because that's what it is.
Discussion on a submission can be about the discussion as well. Are you intentionally trying to be ironic with your comment -- which itself is not constructive or interesting?
I think most of them who show up here are earnest racists. The younger nerds, the PepeHimmler1488 types on Twitter or 4chan, yeah they're probably 50% trolling and may grow out of it.
It's basically a tribal identification mechanism wired into our brain. We have inherited it from our ape ancestors. Chimps can identify the in-group and the out-group, and go to war to eliminate the out-group.
We have realized fortunately that it's morally repugnant and scientifically unsupportable. However, it springs forever from the human heart.
Don't forget confirmation bias. Once you've acquired some racist beliefs, from then on you will be more likely to remember (or seek out) evidence that confirms those beliefs, and evidence disconfirming them will quickly be forgotten. From a racist point of view, these beliefs are correct and supported by empirical evidence, hence the increasing tendency of some people to describe themselves as "race realists"
I always thought that intellectual laziness was a large factor. It's much easier, cognitively, to judge someone by his or her race than by achievements and character.
> Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
I think in all pieces for or against an -ism the author should first define what that term means to them. People usually don't agree on some crucial aspect of the term or will interpret and label a given example differently. So one should also provide a few examples and explain why the given definition applies.
I think in all pieces for or against an -ism the author should first define what that term means to them. People usually don't agree on some crucial aspect of the term or will interpret and label a given example differently. So one should also provide a few examples and explain why the given definition applies.
When you do this you'll find that there will be two ends of the spectrum where people agree, a la https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox and then you can start to think how consensus can be built. For example, age of consent: Pretty much all normal people would agree that, say, 10 is too young and 20 is too old. The value to be used is this bracketed.
Note that there may be problematic issues where perhaps this is not easily done, e.g. gun rights. Everybody would agree on the "too much", for example carrying RPGs on you. But what constitutes "too little"? For many, this value is zero, guns shouldn't be allowed in public, period, while others disagree.
Racism is the modern manifestation of very primal instincts and behaviors which are an integral part of human groups and societies.
To work well as a society, you need to have an identity, a sense of self, of cohesion. For that, you need some contrast, an opposite. Other religions, other countries, other skin colors. They all provide a convenient object for differentiation.
In addition, it wasn't long ago that hunting, aggression, violence was an essential part of survival, and we all still have those instincts. This aggression is mostly under wraps and deeply hidden in modern society, but it's present. And it needs to be directed somewhere, outside of the group.
The more presence a different group gets within your own, the more differentiation and multitude of variety, the more prevalent racism becomes. So the more international and diverse we become, the bigger the problems with racism.
And with smaller satisfaction/happiness, there is more aggression.
--
Sadly, I really don't see a solution in the short term. Our brains are just not wired for the happy, inclusive, diverse, all accepting wonderland lefties aspire to.
Might it be at least somewhat lower level than that? I'm thinking along "selfish gene" lines. You are more likely to share genes with people that look like you than with people that look nothing like you, and so favoring those who look like you should help copies of your genes to make it into the next generation. A genetic predisposition against people who look too different could be selected for.
The problem with blacks isn't that "grandfather doesn't like the neighbors". Blacks were forced into dirty ghettos by zoning laws and HUD redlining policies 50 years ago, and they're still suffering the consequences.
You have to deregulate city zoning laws so people can develop the ghettos. When people worry about the character of a neighborhood being destroyed by development, that's a dogwhistle for a racist zoning policy. I don't think they're talking about the architecture or number of parking spaces; they're worried about the types of people who move into cheaper housing.
55 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 116 ms ] threadDo you really want to try to make the argument that prejudice against skin color is the same category of thing as disagreeing with ideas?
Like... say... Judaism, for example?
I don't think you can justify prejudice against Jews. People who think they can often use epistemological frameworks I find, to be frank, stupid. At the end of the day, we can judge ideas based on their content, their meaning. The idea that this is equivalent to an irrational judgement, like one based on skin color, is what I am attacking here.
Many Indians can't reflect many photons, either. Police aren't shooting them.
Let's see if you can make the leap into what is being inferred with this obvious observation.
Such as the common one I see on HN: All Trump supporters are racist or all Republicans hate anyone that is gay.
It's just as damaging to our society as racism, yet seems to be perfectly acceptable in many circles.
EDIT: It's just a link. Why all the down votes? Does HN not like hip-hop music and contemporary African American culture?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
http://worldstarcombinator.com/
This essay, to me, embodies the Liberal (as in Liberalism) conception of racial politics. The Liberal conception of anything is usually neutered of radical, transformative potential.
Diversity is a social problem not a cause for celebration IMHO. Is it wrong to want this?
It's not a liberal conspiracy and it's really insulting to pretend like millions of Americans who report being subject to prejudice on a frequent basis are delusional because most Americans are embarrassed by their racial biases.
In my experience in the SE, most individuals themselves aren't directly racist to any other given individual of color (aside from very specific stereotypes), but they propagate racism through their actions/policies they support/group think with others who feel similarly.
I doubt you meant it that way, but this translated in my head to "they're racist because they're conservatives". Would you mind clarifying?
We are asked to reject racism on the basis that it is is the blind hatred of people based on their race.
But then we are told that what we have rejected is not in fact the blind hatred of people based on their race. In fact, racism (which we reject, right?) is a system of power and privilege with a strange resemblance to the structural oppression described in Das Kapital. And even the most innocent expression of Whiteness (like pumpkin spice lattes) could be a form of racism.
And to top it off, at the same time as we are asked to reject the form of structural oppression known as Whiteness, we are asked to celebrate the inherent value in all other cultures[1].
[0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...
[1] http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/whiteness
Its a moral issue that needs to be fixed.
Moralizing at racists is not effective. They are already in an us-vs-them mindset, so an attack on their character just amps up those instincts. (When have attacks on character ever been an effective means of persuasion?)
(You also could be arguing that nothing is evil, because everything is the product of evolution, and morals do not exist. If that's your position, then I think it's mistaken, but I recognize that I am not answering it with this post.)
I disagree. I think the only thing that really changes adult behavior is showing them that their behavior violates moral standards that they agree with. (Well, or that it's financially better for them to change...)
With the advent of TV, many people could see the effects of racism first-hand and could no longer justify it to themselves. Their disapproval was fairly effective at getting the more hardline members of their community to moderate their actions.
In Virginia for example, traveling Klan members found themselves suddenly unwelcome in small towns, since either (a) cyncially no small town wanted to be the next one on the news as a lynching ground, or (b) small towners were legitimately disgusted by the seeing children beaten up for no other reason than their skin colour.
Which then leads to countermoves to compensate for behavior before it occurs. Think of it as a way to solve the prisoner's dilemma without getting screwed on the first play, because that's what it is.
We have realized fortunately that it's morally repugnant and scientifically unsupportable. However, it springs forever from the human heart.
Nothing good can come of this thread.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html
> Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
When you do this you'll find that there will be two ends of the spectrum where people agree, a la https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox and then you can start to think how consensus can be built. For example, age of consent: Pretty much all normal people would agree that, say, 10 is too young and 20 is too old. The value to be used is this bracketed.
Note that there may be problematic issues where perhaps this is not easily done, e.g. gun rights. Everybody would agree on the "too much", for example carrying RPGs on you. But what constitutes "too little"? For many, this value is zero, guns shouldn't be allowed in public, period, while others disagree.
There is plenty of literature on this idea:
Racism is the modern manifestation of very primal instincts and behaviors which are an integral part of human groups and societies.
To work well as a society, you need to have an identity, a sense of self, of cohesion. For that, you need some contrast, an opposite. Other religions, other countries, other skin colors. They all provide a convenient object for differentiation.
In addition, it wasn't long ago that hunting, aggression, violence was an essential part of survival, and we all still have those instincts. This aggression is mostly under wraps and deeply hidden in modern society, but it's present. And it needs to be directed somewhere, outside of the group.
The more presence a different group gets within your own, the more differentiation and multitude of variety, the more prevalent racism becomes. So the more international and diverse we become, the bigger the problems with racism.
And with smaller satisfaction/happiness, there is more aggression.
--
Sadly, I really don't see a solution in the short term. Our brains are just not wired for the happy, inclusive, diverse, all accepting wonderland lefties aspire to.
So who is the empathetic one?
You have to deregulate city zoning laws so people can develop the ghettos. When people worry about the character of a neighborhood being destroyed by development, that's a dogwhistle for a racist zoning policy. I don't think they're talking about the architecture or number of parking spaces; they're worried about the types of people who move into cheaper housing.