Comment by mikece | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikece | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

One of the benefits of a college setting would be the gathering together of young intelligent people and exposing them not only to new ideas but how to evaluate, value, and compare ideas for their relative worth. I wonder how much open and free debate of ideas even exists anymore, having given way to the inculcation and indoctrination of "correct ideas." I have long believed that the best way to eradicate racism is to allow racists and anti-racists to have open Lincoln-Douglas style debates on college campuses: allow racists to explain their ideas and positions and the tenability of their position will be exposed for the naked fear and hatred that it is. While not quite as crucial as the previous idea, debates of ideas, languages, operating systems, etc can and should happen as part of a CS curriculum. Regardless of the field we end up in, the need to be able to state one's position and defend it against a counter-proposal is something common to all fields (not just law).

You’re making the incorrect assumption that racists are arguing in good faith and are willing to change their minds after a well thought out intellectual, level-headed discussion. But history has shown us this almost never happens. The majority of them are basing their hatred on emotion and not rationality.

Instead, racists use their platforms to intimidate at-risk minority groups and intimidate them into silence. White supremacists are actively trying to silence those they disagree with, often with violence, not trying to have an intellectually honest and open discussion.

Read about Karl Popper and The Paradox of Tolerance.

I assume you include anti-white racism? Because there seems to be a lot of it about at the moment.

There’s no such thing as anti-white racism. Racism is prejudice or discrimination backed by institutional, structural power.

Therefore, a black person prejudiced against white people (as an example) is meaningless because black Americans have historically had very little power in the United States.

Racism by white americans has historically been backed up by the power of every institution in the United States, which often has meant state-sponsored violence against people of color.

I think most people recognize that this is the "new definition" of racism, or sometimes people refer to it as structural racism. But when people use the term racism, they usually mean the standard dictionary definition, which is about being prejudice against someone because of their race.

It's probably better if people used "structural racism" to define what you mean here. Similar to how "sex" retained the original definition of sex, and "gender" was used for the social construct. If people tried to say "There is no such thing as being born with a binary sex, because sex is a social construct" then it would be equally confusing.

The "old" definition of racism was something like "having an opinion about someone based on their race" and was essentially indistinguishable from the concept of stereotyping, where someone "judges a book by its cover" and makes assumptions based on what someone looks like.

Today we understand that that kind of stereotyping is a universal attribute of human cognition and therefore not explanatory. That is, you can't get from that definition of "racism" to the society we see around us today. Every human does it--everyone is "racist" by that definition--yes, including black people. And yet black people are still far worse off, on average, than whites in American society.

So that definition of racism is useless. It doesn't explain why things are the way they are, and we can't change the way our brain works at such a fundamental level anyway. It has even become a joke--see Stephen Colbert's riffs on "I don't see color."

So yes, the concept of racism has evolved to include power. Without power, stereotypes don't have an opportunity to cause actual harm. You have to consider power to understand why American society, on average, treats white people and black people so differently.

Aha! And so we stumble across the Orwellian redefinition of language: if you don't like a word, just change it's meaning until it suits your agenda.

What counts as "changing the meaning of a word" and what counts as higher, more complex, and more abstract understanding of (originally) lay concepts? For example, if the common conception is that "math" means something like arithmetic, and mathematicians point out that it has a much broader, abstract, complex, and encompassing definition within their field of study, are the mathematicians engaging in Orwellien redefinition of language?

The academic feeling among people who study these topics (socioloists, anthropologists, philosophers) is much closer to what GP defined as racism than the definition you (probably) had in mind.

How many of said academics do you honestly, seriously, truly think don't have leftist political tendencies? You seriously expect to get a completely unbiased opinion out of them? Come on. No matter your political leanings, surely you are willing to admit socialist beliefs prevail in non-STEM academia?

By this definition, if Adolf Hitler had gone to live in Israel, a majority Jewish democracy, he would no longer be a racist, because his “prejudice” was no longer “backed by institutional, structural power” - have I got that right?

No, it's not like that, GP has the wrong conception of the topic. Racism is the thought or ideology alone. This means that the hypothetical Hitler in Israel still fulfils the definition.

Conflating racism with the power to put the supremacist wishes and ideas into practice is somewhere between pointless and negligently dangerous.

As a foreigner, and frequent traveler to the US for some 20 years, find it hard to believe it is still present in any other way than marginally at the US's institutions. Can you point me to some examples?

One example is how the police are far more likely to shoot and kill unarmed people of color in the US[1].

Another example is how people of color in the US are far more likely to be incarcerated than white people are, especially for non-violent offenses.[2]

There's a reason the George Floyd protests have been so intense: His death was no isolated incident, but a pattern of continuing discrimination against people of color in America by those who control the power structures.

Sources:

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/protests-sprea...

[2] https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-just...

Some contemporary evidence would make this argument stronger. (I say contemporary because I guess we all understand what Hitler did.)

My feeling is that a "platform" on Twitter where you abuse and troll people is very different from a platform where you have to step up in public, make a speech, have people challenge your points and so on.

> allow racists to explain their ideas and positions and the tenability of their position will be exposed for the naked fear and hatred that it is

People are pretty susceptible to passionate speech by charismatic figures; much more susceptible, in fact, than they are to facts. This just seems like an opportunity for racists to win hearts and minds.

And anyway, there's tons of open and free debate on college campuses (at least, there was, when they existed in The Before Times), but generally it's debate about methodologies, not ideas. Everyone's more or less on the right (which is to say, left) side of history, they just have different ideas about, how to, for example, dismantle systemic racism, or end homelessness.

Though probably the more frequent topics for debate are more along the lines of beer pong strategy.

> People are pretty susceptible to passionate speech by charismatic figures; much more susceptible, in fact, than they are to facts. This just seems like an opportunity for racists to win hearts and minds.

The unstated assumption of this premise is that some people (never us, always others) cannot be trusted to make good decisions, and thus need to have their decisions made for them, for their own good. It advocates for human subjugation.

"The unstated assumption of this premise is that some people (never us, always others) cannot be trusted to make good decisions, and thus need to have their decisions made for them, for their own good."

You can make good decisions if you have full information and you put a lot of time into it. I hope you're aware that not all racists are dedicated to the search for truth. Sometimes they tell partial truths, mislead, and lie.

Saying it's a bad idea to invite racists to speak publicly about their racist ideologies on university campuses is human subjugation?

ok pal.

The OP was endorsing debates of ideas, not one-sided passionate speeches. In fact the example of a Lincoln-Douglas format was suggested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debate...

The “debate” on racism was lost a long time ago. I would hope it’s well understood it’s a net negative for society. I don’t think debating it over and over again as if there’s merit to racist ideas is remotely a good idea.

It’s like letting the flat earthers continue to teach science classes even though we know the earth is round.

> I would hope it’s well understood... [that racism is]... a net negative for society.

Sure, but there are many racism-adjacent topics that are not so clear cut. For example, affirmative action is a "racist"--in the sense of discriminating based on race--policy, but there are serious, intellectual arguments made both for and against it. I put "racist" in quotes there because there's also presently a debate on the changing definition of racism: is it racist if a policy or stereotype is race-based but well-meaning and positive? Is "power" required, and does this immunize minorities from being racist? Is it racist to criticize a long-held cultural belief or practice such as circumcision?

I think all of these topics are worthy of open and honest debate. (Incidentally though, I think that the best way to shut down flat earthers and other conspiracy nuts is also through open debate...)

I was referring to OP's point that there's somehow a equal place for racism and anti-racism in debate. Conversations about race are difficult because inherently racist people are like a bad faith blackhole.

Also, I would love to see a single example of serious flat earther changing their mind.

"having a debate" != "teaching a class"

> The "debate" on racism was lost a long time ago.

When is the last time you asked someone who is a strident racist to explain their ideas in the form of a full essay or 30 minute presentation? Have you ever seen this done without the implicit or explicit assertion that the target of their animus is a lesser human or perhaps not human at all? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together -- including and ESPECIALLY impressionable young people raised in racist environments -- can see the absurdity of such an argument. The very act of exposing the ideas to open discussion and forcing the proponent to defend them with logic and reason is what ultimately undoes them. Will some still recalcitrantly cling to such ideas? Sure, but that but by that point it will be clear to anyone paying attention it's not for a reasonable purpose.

We have Youtube, and you can go there and watch Bill Buckley make all the same stupid assumptions racists do and have them demolished by James Baldwin.

The problem with modern debates is that they are not honest representations of the subject matter. They are exercises in tactical bullshit, meant to be rapid-fire, points-winning pseudo-arguments instead of constructive, intellectual discussions of the subject matter.

Racism is anti-logic. Full stop. It's an ideology that reinforces itself only through the continued rejection of information. Racism is used extensively to study the backfire effect in psychology.

The only way for such an absurd system of beliefs to exist is to either rely exclusively on morally bankrupt individuals, or to heavily lean on confirmation bias and reject any anti-racist ideas.

I mean, this is not true? Impressionable young people raised in racist environments are impressed by racist arguments - whether emotions based ones or pragmatical ones.

Simply said, own supremacism feels good. Even if you know it is based false argument it can still feel good. Compliments do feel good even if false. It is definitely not a threat.

Also, my own supremacism is practically beneficial to me. I gain from that even if if is based on false arguments. That makes the supremacist arguments much more easy to accept.

Racism appears in many forms, identifying that is not as straightforward as it might appear to be. Debating Racism would probably include many of the ways in which racist behaviors manifest themselves, which isn’t clear from the get go. Eg we now know that certain policies such as redlining, war on drugs and harsher criminal sentences affected minority communities disproportionately. Were these policies racist?

The current President doesn’t want immigrants from African countries but is ok with immigrants from Norway. Is that racist?

And so, the debate over racism won’t be over for a while.

Those are great topics of research. But platforming racists as just people with different ideas is a false equivalency.

I agree. Debating racists does not necessarily mean giving them a platform though. They may already have one. The current US President is well regarded as a racist but he has a platform regardless of his racism. This is true of others as well; it’s not just KKK members who are racists, it can be anyone, especially anyone wielding power via institutions.

What would you call racism, then, if not a different idea?

What's a racist, and who decides?

I think understanding the history of racism why it's attractive to the masses is a great start in continuing healthy discourse over the politics and economics of the matter. You might think that there is no merit, but you can only convince others to rid themselves of racist ideas if you understand where they are coming from.

"What is the dignity of a human being?" and "Who is a human being?" are the two questions that fundamentally undermine a racist. It's quite possible that many racists hold their opinions out of ignorance rather than malice so an open debate is an opportunity for meeting someone in dialogue and remedying their ignorance. Those who are exposed to the truth and reject it pass over into malice and those people are their own worst enemy: leaving them in their self-inflicted echo chamber of rage is the worst possible fate that could befall them. It's not what I hope for racists, but I do pity those who end up in such a state.

> but you can only convince others to rid themselves of racist ideas if you understand where they are coming from.

Absolutely disagree, the appeal of racism is well understood, it's only effect on society is to subjugate people, separate along racial lines.

> healthy discourse over the politics and economics of the matter.

"healthy discourse" implies that there is some kind of equivalency between racist and anti-racist, to believe that is to be willfully ignorant of situation and power structures which exist in the US today.

I'm glad you made the flat earther connection here. I was thinking the same thing and you validated my thought process

> eradicate racism is to allow racists and anti-racists to have open Lincoln-Douglas style debates on college campuses: allow racists to explain their ideas

Allow people to point at one of the nonwhite people in the audience and say, "I don't think this person belongs in the country, who's with me?"

Because that's what it is: for one side, it's a debate with no stakes, but for the other it's their exclusion from the university and all the things that are subject to gatekeeping by getting a degree. Potentially for being allowed to live in peace, or live in the country at all.

Letting that kind of speech be platformed is just a more subtle way of hanging a "whites only" sign on your university.

Do you think there's any way universities can analyse living racist ideas, like a virologist analyses a deadly disease, handling it in an isolated lab and only through thick gloves?

They can and they do .. but it has to be done in the third person and not by advocates. Effectively this is what "post-colonial studies" is about.

The opportunity existed to put statues of racists behind glass, for example, away from their positions of public prominence and celebration. I don't think too many people would object to the university of Oxford having a statue of Cecil Rhodes that they kept in a cupboard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com