Racism

[linguoboy]

What "meaningful difference" between men and women is relevant to the fact that women get sexually harassed regularly in our society and men don't?

That's easy. The greater average promiscuity, physical strength, and aggression of men.

You're skipping a step, though. For someone who agrees with Loury that saying structural racism is real is somehow denying African-Americans agency, you're awfully quick to make it sound like men have no control over their biological urges.

Every man who has ever sexually-harassed a woman had the choice not to and chose instead to be a harasser. Every single one, every single time. There's nothing inevitable about that, no matter what their biology.

Why, in a society that has developed well past the point of satisfying its basic biological urges, would you expect biological differences to trump sociocultural ones?

There's no significant "biological difference" between the majority of monolingual American English speakers and the majority of monolingual German speakers. But this non-biological fact has a pretty significant impact on how they experience the world and interact with others, wouldn't you say? Biologically, there's no "meaningful difference" between me and my straight brother. I guess we've had people interact with us exactly the same our whole lives? For that matter, what "meaningful biological difference" is there between you and Jeff Bezos? The way other people treat the two of you must be basically indistinguishable.

Given a difference between individuals, the question is whether it is inevitable and/or desirable for us to treat each other differently based on this difference. If two people don't share a language, it's inevitable for them to interact very differently than if there were a shared language. I would argue that it is not inevitable and also undesirable for two people of different races to interact with one another in a materially different way solely based on their race.

And this is where we disagree. It's not inevitable in some platonic world of ideal solids and pure elements. It is inevitable in a world where one's racial identity (perceived or otherwise) has a huge impact on every aspect of their lives. Black and white Americans don't always share a language--there's literally a separate linguistic variety that is spoken almost exclusively by African Americans. No, not all African-Americans speak it, but the fact that it exists at all should tell you something about the cultural divide that exists here.

This doesn't mean everyone is going to succeed every time in following this principle. But just like other principles where humanity sometimes falls short such as avoiding violence, speaking respectfully to one another, or indeed treating people the same regardless of their wealth, the principle is still a solid one worth pursuing.

It's a solid principle, just like universal equality or conservationism. We're not disputing the principle here; our disagreements are all about how best to put it into action. You argue that we can't achieve a post-racial society as long as we acknowledge racial differences. I argue that we can't achieve a post-racial society without acknowledging them.

Long story short: We tried just ignoring racial differences with the goal of achieving a "post-racial society" and it didn't work. "Color-blindness" was the common wisdom in the 70s and 80s when I was doing my primary and secondary education. But it turns out when you don't have any meaningful conversations about race, then you don't actually solve any of the problems around it, and things don't just magically get better.

Hold on a second. Ignoring racial differences during social interactions does not preclude having meaningful conversations about race. Furthermore, a lot has gotten better. Racism (what you call racial animus) has steadily decreased, interracial relationships of all types have proliferated, and African Americans have risen to the heights of American society, whether in medicine (Ben Carson), business (Robert F. Smith), or the political sphere (Barack Obama), to name some of the most prominent examples. Despite the remaining problems, the racial landscape of American society was transformed for the better during the time when color-blindness was the common wisdom.

What stands out to me, though, is not what's gotten better but how little has changed and what has actually gotten worse. In 1975, the median income for an African-American household in the USA was 60% of the figure for a white non-Hispanic household. In 2014, that ratio was...59%. The already staggering wealth gap has not only persisted but grown. It's terrific that a few exceptional Black men have achieved comparable success to their white counterparts but I'm more concerned about the fact that the average Black person is, in many ways, no better off.

Moreover, even in the case of those exceptions, what strikes me most is how different their experience is from that of their supposed white peers. The case of the Presidency is particularly striking. We went from having one of our most poised, intelligent, highly-qualified, self-governed leaders ever to having the almost polar opposite. There is simply no way that a Black man as unqualified, unrestrained, unintelligent, and insulting as Donald Trump would ever have been elected. Obama endured a torrent of abuse for the entire length of both terms and never once complained about it; Trump got free pass after free pass and still complained that he was being treated more shabbily than any leader ever. I just don't see how you can make any sense of this without taking race into account. Only a system built to reward white mediocrity could have ever conferred on Trump the societal status where he could even think about seeking high office. This is the system I want to see go away and I don't see how we get there just by being personally nice to each other.

[Gormur]

Biological race and the social construct of “race” have almost nothing to do with each other.

If you’d like to participate in this discussion, you should do some remedial reading first. I’ve already explained all this to you once in this thread.

Well I have read a few reports and listened to lectures on what race is or what it represents. I don't see evidence for anything biological. I guess I'll just agree with you that human race and racism aren't the same thing

Edit: Oh wait, you guys are talking about sociology and not science. Thanks for your time

[Yasna]

You're skipping a step, though. For someone who agrees with Loury that saying structural racism is real is somehow denying African-Americans agency, you're awfully quick to make it sound like men have no control over their biological urges.

Every man who has ever sexually-harassed a woman had the choice not to and chose instead to be a harasser. Every single one, every single time. There's nothing inevitable about that, no matter what their biology.

You asked about a population-level disparity. Just because we can identify psychosociological factors leading to a population-level disparity, that doesn't absolve anyone of their individual responsibility. For example, we could have a long, interesting conversation about the psychosociological factors that lead to black men committing crime at disproportionate levels, but at the end of the day people are responsible for their choices.

And this is where we disagree. It's not inevitable in some platonic world of ideal solids and pure elements. It is inevitable in a world where one's racial identity (perceived or otherwise) has a huge impact on every aspect of their lives. Black and white Americans don't always share a language--there's literally a separate linguistic variety that is spoken almost exclusively by African Americans. No, not all African-Americans speak it, but the fact that it exists at all should tell you something about the cultural divide that exists here.

I still fail to see how "one's racial identity (perceived or otherwise) has a huge impact on every aspect of their lives". I know a lot of people on Twitter believe this, but black people I discuss this topic with in real life generally say something along the lines of "I experience racism occasionally, but overall it doesn't have a big effect on my life". And then there's this related poll which suggests that a majority of African Americans themselves think that the woke rhetoric about white supremacy is a gross exaggeration:



But like I said, if it works out for you in your social circle, great. Based on my experiences and the discussions I've had, the black people in my social circle just want to be treated like everyone else, like a fully formed human being. No adjusted standards based on race and racial history.

It's a solid principle, just like universal equality or conservationism. We're not disputing the principle here; our disagreements are all about how best to put it into action. You argue that we can't achieve a post-racial society as long as we acknowledge racial differences. I argue that we can't achieve a post-racial society without acknowledging them.

Acknowleding racial differences is fine. We acknowledge that we have different hair colors without treating people materially differently based on that difference.

What stands out to me, though, is not what's gotten better but how little has changed and what has actually gotten worse. In 1975, the median income for an African-American household in the USA was 60% of the figure for a white non-Hispanic household. In 2014, that ratio was...59%. The already staggering wealth gap has not only persisted but grown. It's terrific that a few exceptional Black men have achieved comparable success to their white counterparts but I'm more concerned about the fact that the average Black person is, in many ways, no better off.

That's one way of measuring progress. Here's another:

"Not only are black Americans healthier and longer-lived than they were two decades ago, they’re also more educated. Between the 1999–2000 and 2016–2017 school years, the number of black students who earned bachelor’s degrees increased by 82 percent, from 108,018 to 196,300. Over the same period, the number of associate’s and master’s degrees awarded to black students more than doubled, rising from 60,208 to 129,874, and 36,606 to 89,577, respectively (population growth accounts for some, but not all or even most, of this growth). 2018 census data showed that 37 percent of black Americans aged 25–34 had some kind of college degree. If black America were its own country, that would place it in between Germany (31 percent) and Spain (43 percent) in terms of educational attainment. What’s more, the economist Raj Chetty has found that black women, though less likely to attend college than white women, are now more likely to attend college than white men from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.

Along with more education has come more upward mobility. The Federal Reserve recently reported that over 60 percent of blacks at every level of educational attainment say they’re doing better financially than their parents—a higher percentage than either whites or Hispanics. And although black men still lag behind white men in terms of upward mobility, Chetty has found that black women now go on to earn slightly higher incomes than white women from similar socioeconomic backgrounds."

https://quillette.com/2019/09/28/the-case-for-black-optimism/

Moreover, even in the case of those exceptions, what strikes me most is how different their experience is from that of their supposed white peers. The case of the Presidency is particularly striking. We went from having one of our most poised, intelligent, highly-qualified, self-governed leaders ever to having the almost polar opposite. There is simply no way that a Black man as unqualified, unrestrained, unintelligent, and insulting as Donald Trump would ever have been elected. Obama endured a torrent of abuse for the entire length of both terms and never once complained about it; Trump got free pass after free pass and still complained that he was being treated more shabbily than any leader ever. I just don't see how you can make any sense of this without taking race into account. Only a system built to reward white mediocrity could have ever conferred on Trump the societal status where he could even think about seeking high office. This is the system I want to see go away and I don't see how we get there just by being personally nice to each other.

The election of Donald Trump says very little to me about race and a lot about the anti-intellectual strain of American society. To quote Isaac Asimov,

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge"."

Is a black Donald Trump less probable? Sure. Inconceivable? Not to me. Get a load of Allen West in Texas.

When I point out a pattern of behavior on your part that several people on this forum have already acknowledged, you just act puzzled.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[linguoboy]

Is a black Donald Trump less probable? Sure. Inconceivable? Not to me. Get a load of Allen West in Texas.

LOL, Allen West. He's run for public office three times in his life and lost twice.

The Texas convention where he was elected, btw, was a fiasco of Hollywood proportions: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-gop-convention-zoom-disaster/. It's no wonder the man in charge got the ax. If West is still there in two years, it'll be the longest he's ever held elected office. Yeah, definitely the next Obama, that guy.

[linguoboy]

And then there's this related poll which suggests that a majority of African Americans themselves think that the woke rhetoric about white supremacy is a gross exaggeration:

Interesting decade-old graph. How does it jibe with the findings of this recent Pew Research Center Survey?

Blacks are particularly gloomy about the country’s racial progress. More than eight-in-ten black adults say the legacy of slavery affects the position of black people in America today, including 59% who say it affects it a great deal. About eight-in-ten blacks (78%) say the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to giving black people equal rights with whites, and fully half say it’s unlikely that the country will eventually achieve racial equality.

Or this even more recent poll from the UMass Lowell Center for Public Opinion?

Fifty-three percent of Americans say Blacks face job discrimination, 13 percent are unsure and 34 percent say there is no discrimination. Eighty-three percent of Blacks polled said that Blacks face discrimination and only 7 percent say Blacks have the same chance as whites, compared to 41 percent of whites who said Blacks and whites have the same chance.

Or these results from the ongoing Nationscape survey?

Or basically any other survey about racial discrimination other than that one question from that one Gallup survey from 2013? But I'm sure you're familiar with the full body of data on this question and aren't simply cherry-picking to confirm your own opinion here.

[Yasna]

The Texas convention where he was elected, btw, was a fiasco of Hollywood proportions

Sounds like a fitting description of the Republican primaries that produced Trump.

Or basically any other survey about racial discrimination other than that one question from that one Gallup survey from 2013? But I'm sure you're familiar with the full body of data on this question and aren't simply cherry-picking to confirm your own opinion here.

On the contrary, I picked it because its question is stated in stark enough terms that if a majority of black Americans answered it affirmatively, I'd feel compelled to take your assertion that "one's racial identity (perceived or otherwise) has a huge impact on every aspect of their lives" more seriously. And it's not one cherry-picked Gallop survey, its a compilation of Gallop surveys asking the same question over two decades.

[vijayjohn]

When I point out a pattern of behavior on your part that several people on this forum have already acknowledged, you just act puzzled.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Many of us on this forum are well aware that you do not treat white people the same way you treat people who are not white. Nevertheless, you said:

There is also the social context of race, but I find it strange when people interact materially differently with one another based on that

When I pointed this out, you acted like you had no idea what I was talking about.

Meanwhile, when linguoboy said this:

To what end though? I feel like this is less a good faith attempt to understand contextual communication and more an attempt to play “gotcha” by taking a particular statement out of context.

Why would I think that? Well, because you’ve already done it once in this discussion. I provided what I thought was more than enough context for the generalisation my acquaintance made to me about the behaviour of white men to understand why I didn’t take it as a racist attack. Your response was to strip it of that context completely, and then to further distort it by saying “Now reverse the races.” But the statement only means what it does in the context in which it was uttered and when you remove that context it means something else.

he was making a similarly big accusation, that you consistently argue in bad faith. Was your response to this pretending you had no idea what he was talking about? No. It was:

Sorry if I misrepresented what you said.

[Yasna]

When I point out a pattern of behavior on your part that several people on this forum have already acknowledged, you just act puzzled.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Many of us on this forum are well aware that you do not treat white people the same way you treat people who are not white. Nevertheless, you said:

There is also the social context of race, but I find it strange when people interact materially differently with one another based on that

When I pointed this out, you acted like you had no idea what I was talking about.

Meanwhile, when linguoboy said this:

To what end though? I feel like this is less a good faith attempt to understand contextual communication and more an attempt to play “gotcha” by taking a particular statement out of context.

Why would I think that? Well, because you’ve already done it once in this discussion. I provided what I thought was more than enough context for the generalisation my acquaintance made to me about the behaviour of white men to understand why I didn’t take it as a racist attack. Your response was to strip it of that context completely, and then to further distort it by saying “Now reverse the races.” But the statement only means what it does in the context in which it was uttered and when you remove that context it means something else.

he was making a similarly big accusation, that you consistently argue in bad faith. Was your response to this pretending you had no idea what he was talking about? No. It was:

Sorry if I misrepresented what you said.

I choose to apologize or not based on whether I think I've erred, period. I realized I had (unintentionally) misrepresented what linguoboy said, so I apologized for it. I was NOT apologizing for "consistently arguing in bad faith", which isn't even what linguoboy said. There's an unresolved issue about whether "reversing the races" was a fair move or not, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree about that one.

When you make such a serious accusation, you're obligated to make a specific, substantiated, coherent argument. So either make one, or else I'm going to report you for slander.

[linguoboy]

When you make such a serious accusation, you're obligated to make a specific, substantiated, coherent argument. So either make one, or else I'm going to report you for slander.

To whom? The Internet Argument Police?

[Yasna]

To whom? The Internet Argument Police?

The moderation team. How many strikes does this guy have left? He's so toxic that he bullied one of our moderators into contemplating suicide.

[linguoboy]

To whom? The Internet Argument Police?

The moderation team. How many strikes does this guy have left? He's so toxic that he bullied one of our moderators into contemplating suicide.

Where is “slander” in the list of behaviours the moderation team concerns itself with?

Who exactly is he “slandering” you to anyway? He expressed an opinion in a public forum where you can read it and respond to it. Anyone who sees it can look at your past posts and decide whether they think it’s an accurate portrayal or not.

[Aurinĭa]

As a reminder:
The report function is not to be used as a threat. If you think a post breaks the forum policy, or if you're unsure, report it and don't otherwise engage with it.

[linguoboy]

When you make such a serious accusation, you're obligated to make a specific, substantiated, coherent argument.

Fun fact: No you're not. Hence my crack about the "Internet Argument Police". You can dictate whatever rules of engagement you want--it's a free world for guys like us, so go off, fam--but you're not in any position to enforce them. The only leverage you have is your choice of whether or not to engage. This is something worth keeping in mind whenever you argue with anyone here: Nobody who chooses to respond owes you anything. Not a damn thing.

So either make one, or else I'm going to report you for slander.

I was going to ask how that's working out for you, but I guess we all just found out.

[vijayjohn]

There's been a wave of anti-Asian violence in the US lately. To be honest, this is unusually awkward for me personally because I am Asian in the sense that my parents are from a country in Asia, and this is yet another sign to me that my family is not going to be safe here in the long term, but at the same time, apparently, I'm not the intended target of violence at this time whereas my East/Southeast Asian neighbors are.

[Yasna]

When you make such a serious accusation, you're obligated to make a specific, substantiated, coherent argument.

Fun fact: No you're not. Hence my crack about the "Internet Argument Police". You can dictate whatever rules of engagement you want--it's a free world for guys like us, so go off, fam--but you're not in any position to enforce them. The only leverage you have is your choice of whether or not to engage. This is something worth keeping in mind whenever you argue with anyone here: Nobody who chooses to respond owes you anything. Not a damn thing.

So either make one, or else I'm going to report you for slander.

I was going to ask how that's working out for you, but I guess we all just found out.

You liked my post so much that you responded to it twice? I'm flattered.

[Yasna]

White supremacy made him do it.

Seattle social-justice activist charged over anti-Asian hate attacks

On March 16, Hamner allegedly harassed a woman while she was in her car with two children, ages five and 10.
Pamela Cole, the victim, alleged in a Facebook post that Hamner yelled, "F— you, Asian bitch!" She says he jumped out of his vehicle and started "punching his fist together" before throwing projectiles at her car. She called the police.

Three days later on March 19, Hamner allegedly cut off two Asian women with his sedan near a supermarket, blocked traffic in the middle of the road and screamed similar profanities at them. Hamner then got out of his car, charged at the victims who were driving together and launched an object at them, the probable cause affidavit cites.

[...] He has also posted dozens of times in support of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Democrat causes. He also posted frequently in condemnation of anti-Asian hate crimes and white supremacy.

After the recent shootings at the massage parlours in Atlanta, Hamner wrote on Facebook for everyone to "[s]tand UNITED against racism & white supremacy."

[linguoboy]

You liked my post so much that you responded to it twice? I'm flattered.

You don't have any more intelligent response to the points I made? I'm not surprised.

[linguoboy]

White supremacy made him do it.

So here's something I find odd about conservative thought.

Conservatives constantly tell us that they "see people as individuals" whereas adherents of "identity politics" can only conceive of them as representatives of certain identitarian collectives. And yet, it's conservatives who seem at a loss to understand why a person who is not white themself might make the individual decision to ally themself with white supremacy in order to gain some advantage (if only just a perceived one) over other BIPOC. Are you all similarly puzzled that there were Jews who collaborated with the Nazis? Or who also looked down on communists, Roma, and homosexuals?

Where does anti-Asian sentiment originate if not white supremacy? Who was it who conceived of, passed, and enforced the Page Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act? Not Hamner or men who looked like him. He was born into a society where anti-Asian racism was already normalised. How did that happen? What's your way of accounting for this which doesn't invoke an ideology similar if not identical to what I and others have come to call "white supremacy"?

[Yasna]

You liked my post so much that you responded to it twice? I'm flattered.

You don't have any more intelligent response to the points I made? I'm not surprised.

It's not a profitable use of my time to respond to snark with thoughtful arguments.

[Yasna]

Conservatives constantly tell us that they "see people as individuals" whereas adherents of "identity politics" can only conceive of them as representatives of certain identitarian collectives. And yet, it's conservatives who seem at a loss to understand why a person who is not white themself might make the individual decision to ally themself with white supremacy in order to gain some advantage (if only just a perceived one) over other BIPOC. Are you all similarly puzzled that there were Jews who collaborated with the Nazis? Or who also looked down on communists, Roma, and homosexuals?

I don't consider myself a conservative, but I'll try to respond.

Hamner is an outspoken social justice activist who clearly sees himself in an alliance against "white supremacy".

Where does anti-Asian sentiment originate if not white supremacy? Who was it who conceived of, passed, and enforced the Page Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act? Not Hamner or men who looked like him. He was born into a society where anti-Asian racism was already normalised. How did that happen? What's your way of accounting for this which doesn't invoke an ideology similar if not identical to what I and others have come to call "white supremacy"?

The attitudes and behaviors of population groups towards other population groups are constantly evolving. All involved groups are agents in this dynamic process. For example, East Asians have through their relative success become an increasing target of envy-based racism in the US, a phenomenon observed in many places around the world where you have an "overachieving" ethnic minority. Actors small and large from other ethnic groups are constantly making choices that affect the kind and degree of anti-(East)Asian racism found in their groups. Minority groups don't simply swallow the attitudes and mores of white America, or else those groups would have been assimilated into European American society. To sweep all of that aside in favor of the "white supremacy" hammer strikes me as hopelessly reductionist and a case of the genetic fallacy.