Foldn: We began a discussion yesterday which, imo, you derailed by changing the subject. It went like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
I'll just say, in my opinion, the biggest obstacle to further reducing racism in this country is people not talking about it in a healthy, productive way, especially with people we think are racists. You can decide for yourself if this site does a good job fostering those discussions.
This is one of your beliefs that I find absurd. In my opinion one of the bigger obstacles to reducing racism is the phenomenon often referred to as "white fragility". Your entire perspective on the question appears to me to be an excellent demonstration of that phenomenon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Perhaps so, still, would you agree it's a big problem that so many people seem to disagree what racism actually is, much less how to reduce it? How best to convince people of your point of view than to promote healthy discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
<snip about segregation being a larger problem than communication>
In any case, the issue with your theory of the problem is that the only possible reason to believe it is that some people spend a lot of time complaining about being called racist, or "political correctness." But from social psychology standpoint, there is no reason to take those complaints at face value, rather than as post-hoc rationalizations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Fair enough. I agree that white people not knowing many or even any minorities is a big part of the reason behind the lack of empathy that leads to racism. How do you think we can convince more white people to make black friends?
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I'm not sure "convincing white people to make black friends" is actually a satisfactory framing of the problem. Consciousness raising is important, but so is trying to eliminate structurally racist policies and institutions.
Beyond that, I agree with Shame Trolly's argument that the success of consciousness raising does not depend on being overly deferential to the feelings of white people. I also think that trying to make it depend over-much on those feelings is sort of morally repugnant, in a "blaming-the-victim" sort of way, at least insofar as anti-racist arguments are being made by actual minorities who are then told that their argument is invalidated because they didn't state it nicely enough.
Framing theory is fascinating, and I think social movements should pay attention to it. I don't think the argument is that anti-racist advocates should never pay attention to how their arguments will be received by the people that need to hear them. The argument is rather that in the face of willful ignorance and defensiveness (cf. studies like this), pretending that the solution is just to be nicer to people with racist attitudes is a non-starter, both pragmatically as well as morally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Good post. I also agree protecting civil rights, and affirmative action, even reparations could help, and I think it's a political non-starter as long as it is, until it's not. How could that happen? By fostering more, not less productive discussion with people with whom we disagree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
The problem is that coddling the feelings of defensive white people is not actually productive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
It's coddling to enforce rules unequally. No, it's you who is being coddled here, friend.
Your last post is a non-sequitur, as I explained. The previous discussion is about understanding racism as a social problem and useful approaches to solving it. It's not about 2+2 rules.
I'm bringing this up for two reasons. The first is that if there is a "productive discussion" to be had, it's probably here, rather than on the rules of the forum.
The second is that you accused me of insinuating you were racist without telling you why. That was just false at the time because I'd never said anything in this thread that even hinted at you being racist, but in reply I explained my opinion of your posting (emphases added):
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Just take this discussion. Many people in here, you included, have made the point to insinuate or even outright called me a racist in this thread, with no explanation why.
I have not done this. To be clear, "racist" and "racism" have a lot of related meanings. I don't think you believe in the outright superiority of white people, or the inferiority of black people. I don't believe you have any particularly malicious feelings about different racial groups. I do believe based on some posts of yours from the Bruce era that you may suffer from a few prejudicial ideas, or at least did at the time. More importantly, I also believe that your attitudes about discussing race demonstrate a kind of racial bias that is important, on a social level, in the perpetuation of racial injustice. That's why I said they seemed like a perfect example of white fragility. King's complaints about "white moderates" apply to you very well, especially the bit about preferring "order" over "justice."
Beyond that, it's simply false to suggest that no one has told you why they think you are racist. You've been told repeatedly that the relative difference in your level of concern for the people who get called racists in comparison to your level of concern for the people who face racial injustice seems a bit racist. I would only say your posting is "racist" in the sense of perpetuating a racist status quo, even though that's not your intent.
The red is what is important, and the explanation for it flows entirely from our previous discussion, including the parts I quoted above, but also the discussion about MLK. The argument is that your perspective on "racist" being a personal attack and your consternation about forum modding, taken alongside your insistence that the biggest problem in combating racism is a lack of civility from anti-racists, is an attitude towards the problem of racism which I believe exemplifies "white fragility". As MLK had it, it's an attitude that seems to value a perception of "order" (equal enforcement of rules, in your words, or perhaps your free speech absolutism) over "justice". I don't think you intend it that way, as I said, but I think it's the outcome of your perspective. I am happy to call the outcome "racist" in a sense because I believe it perpetuates injustice, regardless of intent.
Now, you can disagree with this, or even take umbrage at it, but you can't argue that you haven't been given any explanation. And there's obviously much more that could be explicated on any of these points. But there, as I said, you were the one that seemed to derail the discussion.
Beyond that, I will try to be even more clear: When I say that I think the outcome of your attitude (in the aggregate, because lots of people think like this. It wouldn't matter if it was just you) is "racist," I'm not actually accusing you of being a bad person. I don't actually care about finding you morally culpable. I tried to take pains to say I believe you have good intentions. I'm not sure how I could be any gentler without distorting the argument I'm making, which is about posts and ideas, and not about your essential goodness as a human being.
?
