Hacker News Reader

Comment by migro23 | Hacker News Reader

Once I heard Kendi's definition of racism (1) I could no longer take that guy seriously. He is a social justice warrior public intellectual of the post modernist variety leading me to think he is either innocently and unknowningly deluded or an intentional and nefarious grifter profitting from giving apparent credence to the hard left hardliners. A similar role that Jordan Peterson leverages to make a living arguing or giving theoritical support for the religious right.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_IpV9rrcGc (it's a 2 minute video and totally worth it!)

View on HN

Not knowing anything about him, do you think I should weigh a 2 minute off the cuff answer in a Q&A segment over what I might find in the 320 page book ubermonkey suggested? The framing of the video is plainly and severely biased, so I have to be suspicious about editing and what context or expansion/correction I might find in a longer clip, plus how the framing itself affects my own interpretation.

edit: Having read all...this, I think I'll still go with the free book, courtesy of my library.

Granted a book can contain much more context that might help the author save face but claiming that the "framing of the video is plainly and severely biased" is tenuous. Why? Because the clip was self contained, It contained 1 question "Please give your definition of racism" and 1 answer that was a definition of racism that was self referential.

You could claim he mis-spoke but c'mon, here's a guy who wrote a book about racism, his full time gig is lecturing primarly around the topic of racism in a University and appears all over the place speaking about it. If he cannot give a straight-up coherent definition of racism off the cuff then there is something seriously wrong. My guess is that this compeletely inadequate definition he gave truly reflects how he thinks and frames the topic of racism and articulating it so briefly it highlights how ridiculous it is.

You may disagree with this interpretation and that's fine but claiming the clip is biased is weak because the clip itself is complete, no editing/cutting and contains 1 very simple question and a complete albeit incoherent answer. Indeed the video contains added text but ignore that, just focus on what he (Kendi) says. That should suffice to support my previous comment.

Humans aren't robots. Every prolific public speaker messes up and says something that's complete nonsense while trying to collect the right words. Surely this isn't the first time he's been asked this question on camera if it's such an important part of his persona. Why this clip? If he consistently defines it poorly, that's one thing. I can't take what could be his worst attempt to define it as normal on this clip alone.

He defines racism loosely enough to paint white babies as racist. Indeed, he wrote a board book on it! Beyond parody.

"Humans aren't robots. They aren't flawless. Every prolific public speaker messes up and says something that's complete nonsense while trying to collect the right word."

Competely agree, what's jarring is that he is replying to a simple question asking to define something that is literally the focal point of his intellectual career. It is possible that he just messed up and said something that as you say was 'complete nonsense'. But for me a simple accident is not the most likely reason given the context.

"Surely this isn't the first time he's been asked this question on camera if it's such an important part of his persona. Why this clip? If he consistently defines it poorly, that's one thing. I can't take what could be his worst attempt to define it as normal."

Fair enough, can you source any other examples of him defining racism?

>> "Fair enough, can you source any other examples of him defining racism?"

The suggested book is in my TBR list now. I haven't made a claim one way or the other, so I have nothing to cite or source. I really have no clue about the guy other than this one clip and the book recommendation, so I'm going to go with the medium where he has room to run and an editor challenging him on what really is a complex topic.

"What is racism?" could fill a book. And hey, what do you know, someone wrote one.

'"What is racism?" could fill a book'

Agree, it is a complex topic but anyone that suggests that Martin Luthar King Jr. was racist because he claimed that "he would like to be judged not by the colour of my skin but the contents of my character" like Robin DiAngelo has (and Kendi falls into this category because he describes [and defines!!!] racism in the same way that DiAngelo does) is not worth the time in my humble opinion. There is a potentially unlimited number of books to read and we all have limited amount of time so some sort of filter is required. And anyone that thinks in a way that leads them to believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was racist is way off and not worth it.

The reason I'm saying this and why I referenced "post modernist" in my original quote is that these people (Kendi, DiAngelo) are defining racism in a way where the intent of the perpetrator of perceived racism is omitted and ignored. This is why I believe the Kendi definition in the video is no accident, he's trying to define it in way such that the intent of individual or group does not come into the equation. Whether you intend to be racist or not does not matter, you are racist by definition if you have the right (or wrong) colour skin.

Post modernism provides the theoretical underpinning of this claim as this school of though claims that objectivity does not exist, it is a phantom and a harmful one at that. There is merely a collection of different subjective experiences and beliefs and my subjective interpretation is as good as anyone elses. So if I interpret your action as racist then according to post modernist doctrine by definition it is racist, regardless of whether you intend to be or not.

Can't you see the problem here? Can't you see the potential problems that wide spread adoptation of such ideas on racism outlined above that are esposed by Kendi, DiAngelo and others would have on society and how it provides an awful basis for the successful collaboration of large and diverse number of people? Defining people by their race, what's more, trying to solve the problem of racism by focusing more on ones race making it the center of your being is in my opinion a political, social, moral and philosophical deadend. Go ahead and read the book but in my opinion it is a waste of time and possibly even worse than that.

You can read the whole book if you want to waste your time. It's easy: racism is white people not wanting to be around gangs; black culture glorifying beating up old Asian people is not racism.

He would get the benefit of the doubt if he otherwise had insightful things to say. The problem is that his entire body of work is gaffes and nonsensical statements like this. His interview with Ezra Klein is filled with him whiffing on softball questions.

He's also currently embroiled in controversy. His own peers allege gross mismanagement of his $40 million in funds, producing almost no research and loaning university funds to family members to purchase luxury real estate.

Not going to like, the definition of racism there makes sense to me. Racism being a set of racist policies resulting in inequality based on racist beliefs. I mean, how else do you describe what race-based slavery is? Slavery is a policy resulting in literal enslavement based on the idea of black people's inferiority.

Like, compare this to ableism-- disabled people often are not allowed to get married because, in order to receive support in society as a disabled person, disabled people are not allowed to have anywhere near the personal worth of an able-bodied person. There's no way this came about completely without some fucked up ideas about disabled people. I also see no way to discuss how this policy came about without bringing up a society-wide acceptance on the lack of worth disabled people "should" be allowed to have.

Do you see any problem in using the term you are trying to define in your definition of that term?

In the context of an entire presumed talk, conference, interview, panel, or whatever presumably about race and racism... nah not really lol. Dude only really has about a minute to respond, and he probably spent already at least 30-45 minutes about it. At some point if I ask a biologist after a discussion about biology what a biologist is, "a biologist studies biology" makes sense. If you go to an entire talk/convo/conference/whatever about a subject and still need someone to define the subject to you, idk man?

With all the respect that is possible on an anonymous forum like Hacker News but I think you are wrong to not be concerned about a person receiving millions in donation funding (1) to counter racism who defines racism using the same word. It's a serious red flag and with the benefit of hindsight if you read the NY times article linked below there was and is very good reason to be concerned.

The person who asked the question states that he listened to the talk and did not hear any definition of racism. This is why he asked the question. If you're really curious you can listen to the whole talk (2). Not that I would recommend listening to the whole thing.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/opinion/columnists/kendi-...

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzuOlyyQlug

The apparent use of "social justice warrior" as a pejorative suggests that maybe engaging with you won't be productive for either of us.

I understand your skepticism, but I was intending to use the term descriptively, not pejorative. Apologies if any offence was taken.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com