Thinking about racism

StewartR

StewartR

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
Scott Alexander is one of the most intelligent, articulate, thoughtful bloggers I've come across on the web. He has impeccable liberal credentials, which means I don't always agree with his views, but he always makes sense.

He's written a superb piece about racism which I whole-heartedly commend. It's 6000 words, so you'll need to invest maybe 10-15 minutes of your time to read it (plus bit of thinking time, because it will force you to think), but I'd say that's a good investment. If you don't have time now, bookmark it and come back when you do. Trust me, it's worth it.

Short version: Most people's thinking about racism is muddled because they confuse beliefs, motives, and consequences. As a result many people (especially liberals like the author) are all too ready to label something as racist, without bothering to think through what they mean by that, and without bothering to think through whether there are actually genuine non-racist motives behind it. This is lazy and harmful because we all know that racists are incorrigible and impossible to reason with, so labelling someone or something as racist takes away the opportunity to understand what's actually going on in society.

Here's the article: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/


PS I haven't posted this in "Hot Topics" because I think it deserves a wide audience, I don't think it's controversial, and there should be no need for any discussion to get heated and personal. Please, let's try to keep it clean.
 
StewartR said:
Scott Alexander is one of the most intelligent, articulate, thoughtful bloggers I've come across on the web. He has impeccable liberal credentials, which means I don't always agree with his views, but he always makes sense.

He's written a superb piece about racism which I whole-heartedly commend. It's 6000 words, so you'll need to invest maybe 10-15 minutes of your time to read it (plus bit of thinking time, because it will force you to think), but I'd say that's a good investment. If you don't have time now, bookmark it and come back when you do. Trust me, it's worth it.

Short version: Most people's thinking about racism is muddled because they confuse beliefs, motives, and consequences. As a result many people (especially liberals like the author) are all too ready to label something as racist, without bothering to think through what they mean by that, and without bothering to think through whether there are actually genuine non-racist motives behind it. This is lazy and harmful because we all know that racists are incorrigible and impossible to reason with, so labelling someone or something as racist takes away the opportunity to understand what's actually going on in society.

Here's the article: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/


PS I haven't posted this in "Hot Topics" because I think it deserves a wide audience, I don't think it's controversial, and there should be no need for any discussion to get heated and personal. Please, let's try to keep it clean.
Click to expand...

He makes some good points, but also some false equivalencies and some pretty inaccurate statements in trying to prove his point.

I'd also disagree with some of his conclusions, if your motive is profit, but the known results are bad for a single ethnic group and good for everyone else, then I'd say that it was still a racist or prejudice action.
 
Racism is an ugly thing, i also think it has indeed changed since the olden days.
for me back in the past it was a colour of your skin insult, pretty simple and seemed to be more used by older people.
when i was in my 20s and 30s it seemed to be angry old men in pubs and skinheads.

now it is about jobs and EU immigrants but the same old people in pubs spout the same ugly words.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Such as his point that saying most terrorists are Muslims being factual.
Click to expand...

You mean this bit?
It’s probably not racist to believe that Muslims commit more terrorism than white people, since this seems to be a true or at least plausible claim...
Click to expand...

You seem to have twisted his words. I wonder whether you did that deliberately or accidentally. There's a difference between "Muslims commit more terrorism than white people" and "most terrorists are Muslims".

Anyway, you may not be aware of this, but the author is from the USA, which has two potentially significant implications. Firstly their experience of terrorism is different from ours, and secondly they get less exposure to foreign news than we do. So when he says this is "true or at least plausible", that might be factual from a US perspective.

But regardless of that, I think it's wrong to give the author a hard time over this. He goes on to say:
... but if people talk about it too much it’s worrying that maybe they’re trying to justify their irrational hatred of Muslims and desire to discriminate against them.
Click to expand...

So whether or not the claim (that Muslims commit more terrorism than white people) is true, or at least plausible, isn't terribly important. His point is that, even if it is factually true, banging on about it too much may be a sign that the speaker is actually a racist. I think that's a valid observation.
 
I think that claim might be a bit racist in itself - since when 'muslim' is a skin tone?

I will back off now, don't want to get banned. :D :D :D
 
StewartR said:
You seem to have twisted his words. I wonder whether you did that deliberately or accidentally. There's a difference between "Muslims commit more terrorism than white people" and "most terrorists are Muslims".

Anyway, you may not be aware of this, but the author is from the USA, which has two potentially significant implications. Firstly their experience of terrorism is different from ours, and secondly they get less exposure to foreign news than we do. So when he says this is "true or at least plausible", that might be factual from a US perspective.
Click to expand...

According to this article in the Huff: When it comes to domestic terrorism in America, the numbers don’t lie: Far-right extremists are behind far more plots and attacks than Islamist extremists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...lamist-extremists_us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df
 
It is interesting that he writes "...notices that immigrants from certain countries seem to be more socialist and more anti-gay than the average American native. She worries that they will become citizens and vote for socialist anti-gay policies." He links socialist and anti-gay which I think would not be a European perspective. We might also not use the phrase "the average American native" ;-) .
More seriously he does not define "race".
 
A weird topic for a photographic forum ,there is no answer to it unless you have been the subject of a racist attack then your not really qualified to join in commenting on it ,and at what level does have meaning ,for example last week I sold something on Facebook there were two people after it but the one that didn't respond in time to buy it then launched into a semi racist attack telling me to go back to England etc and stop selling to honest Welsh people .

My reply was the same as Mrs browns " that's nice"

So how far do you want to take this and more importantly WHY ? The only people that need to worry about racism are those that suffer from it or those with a chip on there shoulder that imagine they will ,the majority of people that I know of multi race ,religion and different countries all get along fine .
 
KitsuneAndy said:
He makes some good points, but also some false equivalencies and some pretty inaccurate statements in trying to prove his point.

I'd also disagree with some of his conclusions, if your motive is profit, but the known results are bad for a single ethnic group and good for everyone else, then I'd say that it was still a racist or prejudice action.
Click to expand...
Does that include the medical industry?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KitsuneAndy said:
I'd also disagree with some of his conclusions, if your motive is profit, but the known results are bad for a single ethnic group and good for everyone else, then I'd say that it was still a racist or prejudice action.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. It sounds like you subscribe to what the author calls "Definition by Consequences":
Anything whose consequence is harm to minorities or promotion of white supremacy, regardless of whether or not this is intentional.
Click to expand...

Not wishing to pick on you personally, but the author of the article argues strongly (and I agree) that Definition by Consequences isn't helpful. For instance, how do you square your belief with the KKK example given in the article?
Suppose the KKK holds a march through some black neighborhood to terrorize the residents. But in fact the counterprotesters outnumber the marchers ten to one, and people are actually reassured that the community supports them..... Plausibly, the net consequences of the march were (unintentionally) very good for black people and damaging to white supremacy. Therefore, by the [Definition by Consequences], the KKK marching the neighborhood to terrorize black residents was not racist. In fact, for the KKK not to march in this situation would be racist!
Click to expand...
 
sphexx said:
It is interesting that he writes "...notices that immigrants from certain countries seem to be more socialist and more anti-gay than the average American native. She worries that they will become citizens and vote for socialist anti-gay policies." He links socialist and anti-gay which I think would not be a European perspective.
Click to expand...
I think it's OK to be wrong or confused when you're putting words into the mouths of your characters, as is the case here. I don't think it logically follows that, because a character says it, the author must believe it.
 
As happened in the east end of London pre ww2 ,with moselys blackshirts being vastly outnumbered .still can't really see the point of this thread or where it's leading
 
From the OP's first post and his supsequent replies, I read this thread as " I am a supporter of Scott Alexander (and LessWrong) anything that you say that cotridicts this is wrong" So we might as well close this thread now.

Apart from the OP, perhaps if others would care to loook him up you will see that Scott Alexander is considerd to be a racist and anti feminst, by some.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Everything is racist, or sexist or xenophobic if you do not agree with my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well your nearly right here's how it was explained to me.

You can only be racist if your white,
You can only be sexiest if your a man
and you can only be homophobic if your heterosexual.
so if your a straight white man your f****d.:LOL: :exit:
 
tarric said:
Well your nearly right here's how it was explained to me.

You can only be racist if your white,
You can only be sexiest if your a man
and you can only be homophobic if your heterosexual.
so if your a straight white man your f****d.:LOL: :exit:
Click to expand...

I appreciate why minority groups were setup but in this day of equality, equal pay etc... Why do I still come across so many Women in Business networking groups or similar - women in business are not in a tiny minority, at some events I go to there are sometimes less wormen than me but other times there ca be more.
 
cambsno said:
I appreciate why minority groups were setup but in this day of equality, equal pay etc... Why do I still come across so many Women in Business networking groups or similar - women in business are not in a tiny minority, at some events I go to there are sometimes less wormen than me but other times there ca be more.
Click to expand...

MOBO awards, NBPA..........
 
StewartR said:
That's interesting. It sounds like you subscribe to what the author calls "Definition by Consequences":

Not wishing to pick on you personally, but the author of the article argues strongly (and I agree) that Definition by Consequences isn't helpful. For instance, how do you square your belief with the KKK example given in the article?
Click to expand...

That seems a very contorted piece of logic. So if i perform an action that had negative consequences on a minority group, as long as someone cannot show my motive was racism, the action cannot be described as racist?
 
The definition of racism from the Oxford English dictionary:

racism
ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun
  1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
    "a programme to combat racism"
    synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, bias, intolerance;More
    • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
      "theories of racism"
Racism is purely a belief, and has nothing to do with consequence. Only actions directly based on those beliefs can be termed racist. Unintended consequences from events not linked to those beliefs are irrelevant in the context of the subject of racism (or any other beliefs) .

The idea of "Definition by Consequences" is a load of twaddle. It's like saying that because I order a cup of tea it proves I don't like coffee.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
That's interesting. It sounds like you subscribe to what the author calls "Definition by Consequences":

Not wishing to pick on you personally, but the author of the article argues strongly (and I agree) that Definition by Consequences isn't helpful. For instance, how do you square your belief with the KKK example given in the article?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's clearly a load of rubbish.

The KKK aren't racist, if an anti-KKK rally has a bigger impact. I mean, seriously? Any definition does not conform to that, he's thought up some flimsy definitions backed up by bizarre logic in order to support his theory.

In the example, the KKK are still racist, the march is still racist. The fact that the anti-KKK march has a bigger impact, just proves that thankfully people like members of the KKK (or the EDL like when the exact scenario happened in Norwich) are in the minority and people will stand up to them.
 
This is an interesting discussion, and shows how differently we all see and define racism.
What I actually took from the article was that the Author was suggesting that liberalism is a good structure for keeping the peace on a planet full of different beliefs, up to the point when one groups only aim is against safety and liberty. I took this as the Author suggesting that liberalism is not a useful way to counter the threat of terrorism and the rising prominence of groups such as ISIS who are solely motivated by hatred, against non-muslim and muslims alike!
 
Well I managed about half of it...

It's just utter rubbish @StewartR full of some really weak examples, full of some appalling stereotypes.

I haven't researched the author, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the whole thing is an attempt at creating an apologist stance for his racism.

The arguments are paper thin and I'm surprised any of it sucked you in Stewart.
 
Racism exists, it is that simple. Whether it is groups of US Marines from Camp Pendleton in a bar in Carlsbad California, saying that they were looking forward to killing "ragheads", or someone at a BBQ in England listening to Bob Marley, and then saying "great music, pity it was made by n*****s", it is racism, and cannot be dismissed simply by trying to put another name to it. Some white people see themselves as superior to other ethnic groups. Some black people see themselves as superior to Asians. It exists in the World today, where some Australians and New Zealanders see themselves as being superior to Aboriginals and Maoris.
By ignoring or wose still, being apologists for racism we can never hope to wipe it out.
 
StewartR said:
Anyway, you may not be aware of this, but the author is from the USA, which has two potentially significant implications. Firstly their experience of terrorism is different from ours, and secondly they get less exposure to foreign news than we do. So when he says this is "true or at least plausible", that might be factual from a US perspective.
Click to expand...
Im not sure it matters where in the world he comes from, if a statements not factual, it not factual.
 
StewartR said:
...

Anyway, you may not be aware of this, but the author is from the USA, which has two potentially significant implications. Firstly their experience of terrorism is different from ours, and secondly they get less exposure to foreign news than we do. So when he says this is "true or at least plausible", that might be factual from a US perspective.
...
So whether or not the claim (that Muslims commit more terrorism than white people) is true, or at least plausible, isn't terribly important. His point is that, even if it is factually true, banging on about it too much may be a sign that the speaker is actually a racist. I think that's a valid observation.
Click to expand...

Stewart I can't believe you really believe that.

Using someone's ignorance to support the validity of their world view is acceptable if your 95 yo Grandma describes her social worker as a 'Darkie' but not to support an 'academic' view that isn't supported by the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top