Allegation of Racism

[kirisutogomen]

Accusations of racism are very serious. The gravity of the accusation requires a stricter standard of evidence. If I'm accusing someone of disliking okra, I don't need a logically airtight argument bolstered by multiple independent factual sources. If I'm accusing someone of racism, though, I have an obligation to be damn sure I'm right before

Comments

[bakedweasels]

You are a racist.

[kirisutogomen]

Oh yeah? Well, you're a ... um, you're a .... you're a hedge fund manager! :-P

[bakedweasels]

That is a serious allegation for which I hope you have adequate factual support.

Seriously, though, I agree with your point(s). As usual.

[nuclearpolymer]

Perhaps it would be more useful to point out when someone's actions might have an unintended racist effect, or might give the impression of racism. Because it is possible for that kind of thing to happen without ill-will or racist intent on anyone's part, and the ensuing discussion, assuming everyone is collaborative and not combative, could be productive or enlightening.

[kirisutogomen]

Good point. I've been meaning to write something about the general desirability of paying more attention to effects and less to motives.

[firstfrost]

Because when you're being treated poorly and disregarded, the thing that makes everything better is to be told that you are required to put together a full research campaign before you're allowed to bring it up.

I mean, I'd love to live in a world where accusations of racism were actually a worse burden than racism, but I don't think we're there yet, and it's not like we're requiring a strict standard of evidence to be racist.

[kirisutogomen]

I actually do require a very high standard of evidence to be racist. So far no racists have successfully met my standard.

[kirisutogomen]

Your comparison of accusations of racism to racism itself is a red herring. Nobody claimed that accusations of racism were worse than racism. Lots of stuff is worse than unwarranted allegations.

And if we're concerned with the thing that makes everything better....well, aren't we talking about trying to change deeply ingrained attitudes and behaviors? Have you found that flinging unsubstantiated insults at people is a good way to do that? Well-constructed factually-based arguments aren't magic bullets, but they effect more lasting change than yelling. Well-intentioned people can be reasoned with or otherwise influenced, but antagonizing them first doesn't help.

[firstfrost]

It's true that, as nuclearpolymer suggests, "That action was racist" tends to work a little better on a well-intentioned person than "You are racist". And yes, yelling doesn't tend to work well, though previously you were only complaining about someone having compiled insufficient evidence before speaking, rather than someone yelling.

But the requirement that the person who is suffering from being treated badly must be polite and considerate of the feelings of the person who is treating them badly, or their unhappiness is arrogant and invalid? I don't accept that tone argument. Do you require that the well-intentioned person who is accused of racism be similarly polite and considerate, or do you let them off the hook because they were antagonized?

As far as red herrings go, I am not clear that considering the existence of racism in a discussion about accusations of racism is as irrelevant as you're suggesting.

[dcltdw]

There's two different things at work here: what you said and what you are. You're addressing What You Are, which I agree is hard (and, I would argue, not very interesting). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't address What You Said.

Jay Smooth says this much better than I could:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b0Ti-gkJiXc

and a followup to that video in a TEDx talk he gave:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbdxeFcQtaU

(For the curious, his homepage is http://www.illdoctrine.com )

[kirisutogomen]

Meh. I don't especially buy the importance of that distinction. The only way we have of determining anything about another's inner state is to observe their behavior. "You are a racist" is always shorthand for "your actions and words strongly indicate that you have racist opinions/beliefs." There's nothing else it could sensibly mean.

I am more interested in the cases where a perfectly innocuous action is misinterpreted as racist. I rejected someone's loan application because they have lousy credit, and they accuse me of an act of racism. The accusation is factually incorrect, with no real evidence, yet it is quite credible to many people, and now lots of people think I'm a racist for no good reason.

[tirinian]

I'm really curious what your definition of "objective evidence" is here. If I prove that the media is 75%* more likely to report about black on white violence than black on black violence, is that "objective evidence" that some portion of the media is racist?

If I report that someone said "All Asians are good at math" is that "objective evidence" that person is racist?

If I document that a particular fast food chain hires 50% fewer latinos than any other fast food chain of comparable size and location, is that "objective evidence" that the chain's policies are racist?

I wouldn't say any of those are "logically airtight." But I think all of them are worth pointing out.

*number entirely made up.

[psychohist]

There's a difference between pointing something out and saying that it's racist.

[kirisutogomen]

If I prove that the media is 75%* more likely to report about black on white violence than black on black violence, is that "objective evidence" that some portion of the media is racist?

It's evidence of something but insufficient to label anyone as racist. Perhaps black on black violence is more likely to be gang-related or drug-related and we have some sort of moral panic about drugs or gangs that causes the media to over-report incidents related to those. The media is ten tiptillion percent more likely to report shark on human violence than zebra on human violence, but I don't consider that evidence that they're prejudiced in favor of zebras relative to sharks.

If I report that someone said "All Asians are good at math" is that "objective evidence" that person is racist?

Yes.

If I document that a particular fast food chain hires 50% fewer [L]atinos than any other fast food chain of comparable size and location, is that "objective evidence" that the chain's policies are racist?No. Fast food chains don't conveniently change only

[tirinian]

*Shrug*. Fine, bring 1 and 3 down to a particular person, if you like.

"Fast food restaurant manager" who hires 50% fewer Latinos than other managers in the chain and area, and individual crime reporter who writes three page articles about black-on-white crimes and two paragraph squibs about black-on-black violence.