Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

JumpCrisscross

> "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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com