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
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
No, that's a straw man you've constructed.
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.
No, it remains a straw man you’ve constructed.
Ironically, you haven’t answered a single question I’ve posed in this thread.