Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zetice | Hacker News Reader

No, "anti-racist" is not just another term for "racist". It literally says the exact opposite.

> A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society.

vs.

> Antiracism is the active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies and practices and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and shared equitably.

How do you read that and think, "Yeah that's just the same thing."? Wildly absurd claim.

View on HN

> How do you read that and think, "Yeah that's just the same thing."? Wildly absurd claim

You're both using separate and internally-varying definitions of racism.

I like your definition of racism per an inherent superiority test. Let's keep it. It operates on the level of ideas in your formulation, but it's really an element of an idea and better applied to individuals and, when colored by law, institutions. Antiracism thus holds its water as an ideology that seeks to e.g. remove that color in law.

Where it breaks down is when we reverse that antiracist ideology to the level of individual action and subtly amend the definition of racism from a racial superiority test to e.g. ignorance of systemic harm. Someone disagreeing with the statement "America is a racist country," or "persons are either anti-racist or racist" is not suggesting "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way." Yet if we brand that disagreement as racism, then antiracism becomes opposing not only that disagreement, but also the people disagreeing. If we go one step further and notice that many people espousing those views share a common race, and then lay animus collectively on their doorstep, then yes, the antiracist impulse becomes, itself, racist (by the superiority test and the axiom that racism, circularly defined, is an inferior belief).

The presumption here is that "America is not a racist country" is a racist statement on its own. Nobody is claiming it is. The problem arises in what that statement does for the racists in America; it legitimizes their behavior, which means it supports people and actions that do suggest one racial group is inferior or superior to another. It's that knock-on effect one ought to think of as fitting the definition of "racist", not the idea itself.

Also why do so many people absolutely lose their minds when they find out that tribalism is a human trait, and when applied to racial groups, results in racism? I really don't understand why the idea that everyone has racist impulses causes such despair for some specific set of people.

The problem isn't that you're a human being, the problem is refusing to try to do better than your base impulses.

"Racist" isn't a brand. It's a neon sign you flip on and off 300x a day, depending on what you do and say.

You're still ambiguously oscillating between definitions of racism and racists.

Weird of you to say considering I defined it very clearly at the start of this discussion.

> "Racist" isn't a brand. It's a neon sign you flip on and off 300x a day, depending on what you do and say

> Weird of you to say considering I defined it very clearly at the start of this discussion

You believe "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way" multiple times a day?

> problem arises in what that statement does for the racists in America

Do you count us (you and I) among those racists? Or are these the non-neon-sign racists?

Do you see the problem? It's insidious.

And do you see the meta problem? This is an intellectually-satisfying semantic debate. But it's entirely devoid of actual meaning! We haven't actually discussed implicit-association biases nor the role of normalizing biased institutions in giving cover to individuals who soundly believe that some races are superior to others. Meanwhile, I take it we both feel strongly about the nothing we're debating.

Yes, when everyone has the snap impulse regarding an "other" group along racial lines, they're flipping on their "racist" neon sign. Then, when they realize that's ridiculous and the result of every human's biological affinity for like-appearing fellow humans, they flip their "racist" sign off. You, me, every single healthy human who interacts across racial lines has this impulse. It's normal, you're not an awful person for being human, and nobody is trying to "brand" you anything.

Racism is an insidious problem, that is correct, but one that many, many people successfully navigate, and even often ingrain that secondary reaction into an automatic response.

When you ask "Do YOU have racist thoughts?" the point is that for many, the natural human instinct towards tribalism is paired with an also-natural human instinct of empathy. Of course this only happens when you recognize the first impulse, but once you admit it's happening, obviously you can get to a place where you're usually able to do better than your baser instincts as part of your natural way of interacting with the world. To deny your tribalistic impulses is to literally deny your existence as a human being.

The problem arises when folks seem to want to pretend human impulses don't exist. How is that "nothing"? It's a critical determinant in how you treat the people around you, why would you call that "nothing"?

Within one comment, I showed how you used multiple definitions of racism and racists.

Nobody is pretending something doesn't exist. But it's going to be difficult to pinpoint what that "something" is if we get caught up in semantics, which is where this issue--broadly--has hit the rocks in national discourse.

No, you didn't show anything related to the dual definition of racism you claim I've given, and yes you are currently in denial that you have tribal impulses along racial lines.

> you didn't show anything related to the dual definition of racism you claim I've given

You didn't respond to the questions in my comment [1]. No matter. Let's take this one.

Are "tribal impulses along racial lines" equivalent to believing "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way?" If not, wouldn't discussion be clearer if we used different terms for them?

> you are currently in denial that you have tribal impulses along racial lines

I never disputed this point? (Not the denial. I dispute that.) But implicit associations that manifest subconsciously part--this is the first time it's coming up directly. I understood that as settled psychology.

What I'm challenging is putting those implicit biases under the same word we use to describe those who intentionally and consciously believe their race is superior to others', and act on that belief.

The muddling is good for drama. Bad for actually discussing ideas. Exhibit A: this thread.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36885608

The point is the impulse and the acceptance of the impulse has the same result, if it isn't acknowledged (glad you accept it's real).

It's not dramatic, it's reality, but if you think it's dramatic, imagine someone who doesn't' get a job because of the soft bias might feel...

"Oh good, well as long as the HR manager doesn't like my hair it's okay, so long as they don't think they're intellectually superior."

> point is the impulse and the acceptance of the impulse has the same result

You're arguing someone with implicit biases has the same effect on the world as one who proudly says Jim Crow-era lynchings were justified and slavery wasn't bad? Come on.

When people say soft impulses are different from intentional discrimination, they aren't saying the implicit biases are okay. They're just saying they're different. The word "racism" currently plays--within this context alone--the simultaneous roles of referring exclusively to the former, exclusively to the latter and to both collectively.

Attacking someone who hasn't acknowledged their implicit biases by comparing them to a Southern revanchist isn't only unproductive, it's counterproductive. Disagreement and standstill are almost guaranteed by the structure of the discussion, irrespective of the strength of anyone's arguments.

> You're arguing someone with implicit biases has the same effect on the world as one who proudly says Jim Crow-era lynchings were justified and slavery wasn't bad? Come on.

I am not arguing anything, I’m observing. If you think racism isn’t just as bad when it’s subconscious or subtle, you’re fooling yourself. Just because someone doesn’t call you a name doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking it or acting on the hate.

How could you be so naive? All a racist has to do to satisfy you is to perform their hate in silence? Unreal.

> All a racist has to do to satisfy you is to perform their hate in silence

Nope, you've muddled intentional and unintentional impulses again.

In any case, I think there is a fundamental disagreement here. Between you and I. And between most of the country and those espousing this definition of racism. I had thought it was semantics, but I guess there are folks who believe slavery and implicit bias are moral equivalents.

We disagree, but I appreciated the discussion. Thank you.

I'm not muddling anything, I'm equating them. They are equally as bad, the latter possibly worse. As MLK says in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail":

> First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

We may have a fundamental disagreement, but I'll go ahead and stand with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

> I'm not muddling anything, I'm equating them

Even then, the rhetoric is counterproductive. If I'm arguing jelly beans and Snickers are both candies, it doesn't help to call each of jelly beans, Snickers, and a set of the two by the same name.

> I'll go ahead and stand with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

You choose a good quote! Read it again. Nobody here argued for the merits of implicit biases. Just that it is different from what many people consider racism.

The Reverend MLK, Jr. agrees. He uses different terms for "the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner" and "white moderates." Because the latter, while--as he argues--harmful, isn't equivalent to the former. In drawing that line, he strengthens his argument, and shows how the moderate stance resembles the extreme one.

If we rewrite his words with your rhetoric, it would involve refusing to distinguish, rhetorically or ideologically, between the KKK'er and white moderate. In doing so, King would have not only told a mistruth, he would have also lost his ability to sway the latter.

My dude, he says they're worse. I don't think that's the rhetorical win you want here.

I'm pulling back from that by equating them, taking a more moderate stance. But you're right, I shouldn't water down MLK's thinking here; the implicit racists are substantially worse than the outright racists because they normalize the behavior and try to push black people down through unjust tranquility.

> he says they're worse

No, he says he "almost reached the regrettable conclusion." If we change his words, sure, it's a foregone conclusion. But that's not what he said, and that isn't an accident.

Also, again, he understands they're separate groups with different ideologies.

> implicit racists are substantially worse than the outright racists

Well, I didn't come into this conversation expecting to change my mind, but here we are.

Is your entire argument that racists come in multiple categories, and you think I'm failing to sufficiently differentiate between individual racist ideas?

> Is your entire argument that racists come in multiple categories, and you think I'm failing to sufficiently differentiate between individual racist ideas?

No, that's a straw man you've constructed.

No, it's a summarization of your argument, isn't it?

This is a "squares and rectangles" argument... no wonder you think this is a stupid conversation!

You also don't probably have to quote my entire comment.

> it's a summarization of your argument, isn't it?

No, it remains a straw man you’ve constructed.

The fact that you're not elaborating or correcting me demonstrates it isn't a straw man.

> fact that you're not elaborating or correcting me demonstrates it isn't a straw man

Ironically, you haven’t answered a single question I’ve posed in this thread.

...that's not how conversations work. You aren't in charge here.

“so that power is redistributed and shared equitably”

Equitably is where the problem is. Most definitions people give for equitable boil down to “not equal, but based on criteria that I think are good and just”.

>How do you read that and think, "Yeah that's just the same thing."? Wildly absurd claim.

How do you not? It is a presumptuous contention that all racial inequalities are racist in origin and nature -- the follow through on this contention, that all races must be made equal in outcome, is inherently racist[0].

[0]because it judges persons on their race and not their individual qualities, e.g. an SAT score.

I guess it depends on how you define racism. One common definition is negative discrimination based on race. In order to be anti racists you must negatively discriminate against a race, therefore anti racism is just another term for racism.

To put two and two together, by your definition:

Antiracism is the active process of identifying and eliminating ideas that suggest one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way

If there are observable differences between racial groups (not a contested fact I think?) then you are racist or not depending on your values. For example, if you observe that there is difference in average height between two racial groups, and you consider being tall to be good, then you are racist because you must therefore see one group as superior in that respect. The anti-racist response, according to your definition, must therefore be to eliminate the idea that being tall is good.

For example, if you are a basketball scout, and you disproportionately recruit people from one race over another because they are on average taller, then you are racist. Anti-racist activists would aim to change your "systems, structures, policies, practices and attitudes" to ensure that the opportunity to become a professional basketball player is distributed equitably.

But no matter how you implement it, to achieve that goal implies that someone who would likely have been a better basketball player is going to have to be passed over in favor of someone else who was scouted in order to boost the number of people of their racial group in the pipeline. That is, someone was given (or not given) something because of their race, at least in part. Many reasonable people would consider that racially biased, or "racist" according to the way the word is used in common parlance.

> If there are observable differences between racial groups (not a contested fact I think?)

Not a thing, and very much contested.

Even scientists who dispute the idea of a genetic basis for race agree that there are observable differences between races.

There are real ancestry differences across populations that correlate to the social constructions we have. We have to deal with that.

— David Reich, quoted in Angela Saini, Superior: The Return to Race Science, (Chapter 7: Roots)

No, they don’t. There is literally zero biological concept of race, and the observations you’re referring to aren’t along “racial” lines that exist culturally.

> Biologically valid races are not real, but cultural racism is, and we must understand how this cultural reality affects our everyday interactions.

Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea

I didn't say there was a biological basis. David Reich doesn't say there is either - he is well known to be opposed to the idea. But there are observable differences - how they come about is another question. And any difference is potentially subject to a value judgement, leading to the conclusion I outlined above.

Peace.

Oh, well yeah -- racists created these categories based on superficial observable traits that do end up being genetic (e.g. skin tone).

That's true, but nothing else is. No other correlations can be made, and certainly "racial makeup" isn't a thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com