I've always been very proud of the fact that I came out in support of gay marriage before it was cool. I have been correspondingly chagrined at my failure to speak out sooner and more vociferously about the shameful and systemic mistreatment of people of color, and black people in particular, in the U.S. For what it's worth, I hereby confess my sins, acknowledge my white privilege, and announce my advocacy for reparations. No, I never owned slaves. None of my ancestors ever owned slaves. But there is no question that I have received preferential treatment because of the color of my skin. Cops don't harass me. Prospective employers don't look at me sideways. I have shared in an inheritance of wealth that was built in no small measure on the backs of of the forced labor of black people that the descendants of those laborers have not shared. My undeserved share of that inheritance is in and of itself a wrong that needs to be set right, notwithstanding that I had no direct hand in bringing it about.
There. I said it.
Now, as the first step in my atonement, I would like to bring to your attention a name that should be remembered alongside that of George Floyd and Breona Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery and Trayvon Martin and the dozens and thousands of other black people who have been killed because they were black. That name is Ricky Ray Rector. His name is conspicuously absent from this web site despite the fact that he was killed by a white man because he was black. The reason his name is almost completely unknown is because the man who killed him was Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the United States, while he was governor of Arkansas and still a candidate for president. Conservatives don't remember Ricky because they do not mourn his passing, and liberals don't remember him because the Clintons are as sacrosanct to them as Donald Trump is to conservatives.
Ironically, Donny and Billy have an awful lot in common. Both are narcissists. Both are rapists. And, apparently, both are racists, or, at the very least, willing to play to a racist audience for political gain at the cost of innocent lives. And, I must grudgingly concede, both are political geniuses for being somehow able to get black people to support them despite making a show of courting ant-black racist sentiment.
So as part of my penance I pledge to keep the memory of Ricky Ray Rector alive. I will remember how he ordered pie for his last meal, and then didn't eat it because he wanted to save some of it for later. I will remember how I supported Bill Clinton, the man who personally oversaw Ricky's execution despite the fact that Ricky was clearly not mentally competent because no one was gonna Willie-Horton him, God damn it.
I will remember these things. I don't know if by remembering them I will sleep better or worse. But I hope that by remembering them I will be able to look at myself in the mirror when the morning comes.
Ricky Ray Rector doesn't seem like a clear example. He was not an innocent victim. He was a terrible person, who did terrible things. Politics may have played a role at the very end, but he was lawfully convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to execution, long before Clinton ever got involved. You have to stretch the story quite a bit to get to a claim that Rector died because of white racism against blacks.
ReplyDelete> Ricky Ray Rector ... was a terrible person
ReplyDeleteHe was... until he put a gun to his head and blew out his frontal lobe. After that he was mentally incompetent.
Agreed, but he was sentenced for crimes he committed while still competent. The usual "incompetent" legal defense is that the person was not "responsible" for their crimes, because they couldn't distinguish "right" from "wrong" in the moment. (And thus: "punishment" provides zero deterrence effects.) This was not the case with Rector. He was aware of what he was doing, when he did it. So the usual "mentally incompetent" defense is not especially relevant. (Nor was ruling that out under Clinton's control anyway.)
ReplyDeleteYou can try to turn it into another argument, and say that he became a "different person" after the failed suicide, so that the "person" that was executed was not actually the same "person" that committed the original crimes. That gets into complex questions of continuity of identity.
But in any case, we've gotten quite far from a claim that this is an example of white racism.
Maybe at best you can say that Clinton had the power to intervene and stop this legal proceeding, but because the political benefit of executing a black murderer was convenient for him, he chose not to intervene (and indeed, celebrated and highlighted it). And maybe it wouldn't have been as "useful" for Clinton, if Rector hadn't been black.
But Rector being lawfully sentenced to execution in the first place, does not seem to have been especially racially motivated.
@Don:
ReplyDeleteYou should read this. It is quite clear that RRR was mentally incompetent, had no idea what was happening to him, and that Clinton had him executed as part of a deliberate and on-going plan to position himself as tough on crime and draw attention away from the Gennifer Flowers scandal. And it worked. And it worked in no small measure because Ricky Ray was black. No, Ricky Ray is not the ideal poster child for systemic racial discrimination. But if you're going to question that he was a victim of it you might as well start questioning whether George Floyd was targeted because he was black. After all, there is no actual evidence for it. Maybe officer Chauvin would have knelt on Floyd's neck even if he was a white guy in a business suit. Maybe Geroge Zimmerman would have killed Trayvon Martin even if he looked like a Mormon missionary. Maybe maybe maybe.
For any individual instance of a black man being killed at the hands of a white authority there is almost always a way to explain it away. It is extremely rare for a white authority to kill a black man in full view of the cameras while shouting, "Die, nigger!" Its kind of like climate change: you can't definitively ascribe any particular incident to systemic racism just as you can't ascribe any particular extreme weather event to climate change. But pointing to Ricky Ray's prior bad acts as if that justified killing him when he was clearly mentally incompetent is missing the point of Black Lives Matter just as badly as those who respond by saying "all lives matter." Yes, of course they do. But if you think that's *relevant* at this juncture in history, well, I just don't even know what to say. The most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that you didn't think this through.
@Ron: "It is quite clear that RRR was mentally incompetent, had no idea what was happening to him"
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree, that's pretty obvious. By the time of the execution, this was a child-like creature. But that fact by itself doesn't make the morality of the outcome as obvious as you suggest.
"Clinton had him executed"
That's not appropriate language. The justice system had him legally executed. Clinton ("merely") failed to exercise his discretion to commute his sentence. That's not quite the same thing, for example, as the George Floyd case of overt causality in the death.
"And it worked in no small measure because Ricky Ray was black."
Yes, agreed. Clinton was a political opportunist, who saw that he could use Rector's life as a pawn in his own political ambitions. And part of the value, to Clinton, was that Rector was black. I agree with you.
"you might as well start questioning whether George Floyd was targeted because he was black. After all, there is no actual evidence for it"
That's a very, very important point, that I think you're passing by far too quickly. There is a problem with militarized police encounters with civilians. But is there actually a current epidemic of US racist cops killing innocent black victims? The actual data says no. (E.g. Sam Harris: podcast and transcript.)
"Maybe Geroge Zimmerman would have killed Trayvon Martin even if he looked like a Mormon missionary."
Probably not. That one seems to have more direct racial evidence.
"Its kind of like climate change: you can't definitively ascribe any particular incident"
Yes, exactly. It is completely inappropriate to take an individual hurricane or heat wave, and say, "look! there's climate change!". That is failure of careful thought: it is motivated reasoning, availability bias, confirmation bias, etc. That's not how to carefully think about climate change! You need instead to look at careful worldwide data over years, examine complex weather models, etc.
The objective data on racist cops does not support the current BLM zeitgeist. I would assert that your highlight of Ricky Ray Rector is similarly emotionally appealing but logically sloppy.
"But if you think that's *relevant* at this juncture in history"
Now you're talking politics. I'm well aware of the current political climate. I'm well aware that there is a cultural demand for empathy and compassion and "doing something". I had thought you were also interested in exploring objective truth, on the side. For objective truth, you need to set aside emotion, and look at the evidence.
If you're not interested in doing that, then I apologize for wasting your time.
> Now you're talking politics... I had thought you were also interested in exploring objective truth
ReplyDeleteThose are not mutually exclusive.
You are missing the forest for the trees. Everything you say is true. There is no "current epidemic" of U.S. racist cops killing innocent black victims. What there is, and has been for 400 years, is *systemic* and *institutionalized* racism and concomitant discrimination against black people (and others of course, but mainly black people). That discrimination has taken on various forms over the years, from slavery, to Jim Crow, to voter ID and stand-your-ground laws today. It has morphed and mutated, but it has not gone away. And I am among the beneficiaries of those 400 years of systemic discrimination, and, like it or not, so are you. The details of the example I happened to pick to make this point are completely irrelevant. I could have pointed to Willie Horton himself, where the situation is even more black-and-white (pun very much intended). Horton was quite literally the poster child for the Bad Black Man. It's not about whether or not it was *justified* to make him the poster child for the Bad Black Man, it is about the fact that there *exists* a poster child for the Bad Black Man, but there is none for the Bad White Man. The closest you could come is Charles Manson, but he's considered an anomaly. Horton is an archetype.
Likewise, Rector was made into a political pawn by Bill Clinton *because he was black* and it cost him his life. It *doesn't matter* if his execution was justified, though the fact that it clearly was not does help to drive the point home. What matters is that Clinton *used* Rector *because* he was black.
This systemic racism is woven so deeply into our psyches that white people are often completely oblivious to it. There is a very subtle racist trope in the text I just wrote. I myself didn't even realize at the time I wrote it that it was there. I only noticed it as I was proof-reading, and I decided to leave it in to make this point. Can you spot it?
P.S. Since you're on about "objective truth", this:
> he was sentenced for crimes he committed while still competent
is true, but irrelevant. In order to be legally tried the accused has to be competent *during the trial* and Rector was not. Yes, he committed murder. But then he blew his brains out. And then he survived. And then he was railroaded. And all of that is irrelevant because systemic institutionalized racism is real and ongoing. That is the objective truth.
I disagree with your framing. (Well, not necessarily "yours" alone; it's of course the framing of the current cultural moment.) I don't think you have analyzed history correctly, nor the current state of human interactions, nor the sorts of wise policies that are most likely to improve things going forward into the future.
ReplyDeleteBut I understand that's not what the current (culture-wide) discussion is about; it's instead about empathy and compassion and anger and injustice. So perhaps in this case, discretion is the better part of valor.
> I don't think you have analyzed history correctly
ReplyDeleteReally? What part of history do you think I got wrong? Surely you're not denying there is a history of systemic institutionalized racism in the U.S.?
> But I understand that [the current state of human interactions... wise policies] is not what the current (culture-wide) discussion is about;
That's *exactly* what it is about. Or at least that's what it *should* be about. It's certainly what my post was about, or at least what I *intended* it to be about.
> perhaps in this case, discretion is the better part of valor
Or perhaps you need to consider more seriously the possibility that you have missed the point?
Let me respond directly to the only substantive criticism you have raised:
> The objective data on racist cops does not support the current BLM zeitgeist. I would assert that your highlight of Ricky Ray Rector is similarly emotionally appealing but logically sloppy.
1. Exactly what "objective data" are you referring to here?
2. I chose Rector as an example precisely *because* he is emotionally ambiguous. He really did commit murder, or at least the body in which the remains of his mind resided did.
3. Even if I concede that Rector is a terrible example, do you seriously dispute my actual point, that there is a history of systemic racism in the U.S., that societal disparities caused by that history persist today, that you and I are the beneficiaries of this disparity, however unwitting, and that all this still needs to be addressed and somehow made right?
@Don:
ReplyDeleteLet me just ask you straight out: do you think that anything that I've said here is anywhere in the remote vicinity of an actual problem? If so, how would you characterize that problem, and what do you think should be done to fix it?
[part 1/2]
ReplyDelete@Ron: I essentially suggested "let's just agree to disagree -- and drop it", but apparently that isn't your preference.
"Exactly what "objective data" are you referring to here?"
2019 was a 30-year low for police shootings (in LA). There are about 50-60 million annual "encounters" in the US between police and civilians. There are about 10 million annual arrests (down from 14M in the 1990s). About 1000 civilians die from being killed by the police each year. Most of that 1000 involved civilians with weapons. About 50 unarmed people are killed each year by police. "Unarmed" doesn't mean "innocent": most of those involved unarmed people attacking armed cops, where the rules of engagement allow police the use of lethal force.
Of the 1000 civilians killed each year, 25% are black and 50% are white. (Blacks are 12-13% of the population.) Blacks also commit 50% of the murders in the US. Most violent crime is black-on-black crime. Black and Hispanic cops are MORE likely to shoot black or Hispanic suspects than white cops are.
There are some terrible videos being published (availability bias, confirmation bias). They represent examples of the small fraction of 50 unarmed deaths by cop out of 50 MILLION annual encounters. Each of these is a one-in-a-million kind of event.
The data simply does not support the narrative, that a major problem in society today is racist cops killing innocent unarmed black men.
[part 2/2]
ReplyDelete"do you seriously dispute my actual point, there is a history of systemic racism in the U.S., that societal disparities caused by that history persist today, that you and I are the beneficiaries of this disparity, however unwitting, and that all this still needs to be addressed and somehow made right?"
There is clearly a past US history of system racism, yes. (Slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc.)
That history leading to current societal disparities is FAR less clear. Many subcultures (in particular, Jews and Chinese immigrants) have thrived in the US ("model minorities"), DESPITE widespread mainstream dislike and discrimination. Over generations, the tools out are available: strong nuclear families, focus on education and hard work, save more than you spend, sacrifice for your kids, trust in your own people, etc. Racial discrimination is a barrier, yes -- but not an insurmountable one.
The "beneficiaries of this disparity" I have an even harder time with. Slavery is not a wise economic policy (even aside from the moral evil). Most people imagine that the South got "rich" off the backs of slave labor, and that's why southern white people are rich today, and the black descendants "deserve" the rewards from their own ancestor's labors.
But that's not how economics actually works. Adopting slavery is not the path to wealth. Economics allows for "lose-lose" scenarios, where BOTH sides are worse off. Of course the black slaves had a terrible experience. But the North didn't have slaves ... and was far, far richer. (Yes, the North differed in many other ways too.) The basic story is that EVERYBODY lost from slavery, both morally AND economically. In a counterfactual world without any slavery, the South would have (eventually) wound up much richer.
Does it "still need to be addressed"? That's a complicated question. Legal barriers to black achievement are gone, and in fact have very clearly gone the other direction. Most legal mentions of race are in order to provide reverse discrimination, quotas, that sort of thing. The Asian population at Berkeley and Harvard have been suppressed, and the black population increased, compared to what the numbers would have been if race were not a factor. In almost every area of the law or government, it is either neutral or an advantage to be black.
Now, individual humans still have preferences, for friends and business associates. And those preferences are not race-neutral. But it is the nature of humans to be "tribal". They seek identity, and "in" groups and "out" groups. Everyone does this: minorities just as much as whites. It's culture, language, food, sports, dialect, etc. It is self-identity.
You have to find a way to get along, without imagining a fantasy society composed of entities that are not actually humans.
As to "somehow made right", now you've slipped into emotion and offense and justice, and are no longer talking about objective truth and policies with a positive cost/benefit analysis. People will do what they want, because they want to do it, and it makes them feel good. People feel wronged, and want a gesture of goodwill. I accept that.
@Ron: "Let me just ask you straight out: do you think that anything that I've said here is anywhere in the remote vicinity of an actual problem?"
ReplyDeleteStraight out? No, I don't. I don't see "an actual problem" in the things you've written in this post.
"If so, how would you characterize that problem, and what do you think should be done to fix it?"
If you were to ask me about a problem to fix, the problem I would focus on is the underperformance of black achievement, compared to the potential available in the US.
But the path to actually fixing that, does not run through a narrative of "victimhood". That model gets to learned helplessness, and fights over redistribution. That is not a path to long-term success.
The actual solution to the real problem involves learning the lessons of those populations of humanity that have managed to crawl out of the Malthusian trap. The 1800's industrial revolution. China, in the 1970's, etc. Forget about "justice". Forget about "who is to blame". Forget about past history. Forget about current wealthy and powerful people who hate you. All of that is unfortunate ... but it doesn't need to stop your success.
Stay in school. Don't have kids as teenagers. Don't have kids out of wedlock. Fathers raise their children. Don't get involved with drugs, or crime, or guns. Build equity. Spend less than you earn. Respect and obey the police. Work very, very hard.
That is the real solution, to eventual black success. All of this BLM outrage about justice, while understandable and even justified, is actually not helpful. It's putting the focus and effort on the part of the problem that will not lead to long-term success.
@Don:
ReplyDeleteAgain, I don't disagree with anything you have said. But you seem to imply that the macroeconomic losses caused by slavery somehow ameliorate or negate or are mutually exclusive with the socioeconomic disparities that it caused. Yes, slavery and Jim Crow left everyone worse off. But this is *irrelevant* because the macroeconomic losses were (and are) still disproportionately borne by blacks.
And yes, it is true that many minorities have been discriminated against and have managed to overcome that. But no other minority was legally enslaved for 250 years and legally discriminated against for another 100. That is not an irrelevant detail that can be simply swept under the rug.
Finally, yes, it is true that violence against blacks is much lower than it used to be, but just because there are fewer lynchings now then there used to be doesn't make the lynchings that remain OK. And it's not just about the lynchings. It's about the *harassment*. The killings are what make the news and stoke the passion, but underneath the (admittedly rare) killings is a vast submerged iceberg of
harassment and other effects of systemic discrimination. For every black man who is killed after being stopped for "being suspicious" there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, who are harassed but don't die and so we never hear about them unless they happen to produce a viral video. This happens all the time to black people, hardly ever to white people.
It's Not My Fault
ReplyDelete@Ron:
> I hereby confess my sins, acknowledge my white privilege, and announce my advocacy for reparations.
Confirmed.
Who, exactly, would qualify for reparations?
>Both are rapists.
No.
>And, apparently, both are racists,
No.
>Trayvon Martin and the dozens and thousands of other black people who have been killed because they were black.
Trayvon Martin was not killed because he was black. He was killed in self-defense by Zimmerman because he attacked Zimmerman and started pounding Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk.
>I will remember how I supported Bill Clinton, the man who personally oversaw Ricky's execution despite the fact that Ricky was clearly not mentally competent because no one was gonna Willie-Horton him, God damn it.
Bill Clinton's "I'm not soft on crime" initiative also including staging a photo of him in front of blank prisoners in chains at the Stone Mountain Correctional Institution in Georgia.
@Ron: "I don't disagree with anything you have said."
ReplyDeleteGreat. I appreciate that we're (mostly) on the same page.
"the macroeconomic losses were (and are) still disproportionately borne by blacks."
I think I disagree with the "and are" part. There were no long-term gains from slavery. And the current wealth of southern whites (or the US as a whole) did not (primarily) come from slavery. I do not agree that macroeconomic losses from the (slavery) past have much to do with current black (lack of) wealth. (The cultural impact of slavery is a different story: blacks acquired a culture that prevented them from achieving future success, yes. My assertion is that BLM continues to be a misguided extension of this kind of culture, and will similarly fail to enable blacks to achieve their potential in the future.)
"That is not an irrelevant detail that can be simply swept under the rug."
I'm open to the argument. But I'm not just going to assume the conclusion. I totally agree that the past history has created the current culture, and I believe that the current culture is preventing modern black achievement. But if you somehow changed the culture, today, then that past history wouldn't matter.
"just because there are fewer lynchings now then there used to be doesn't make the lynchings that remain OK"
I agree with you. The search for justice is never complete. The cop who killed George Floyd should be (and is!) prosecuted for murder.
At the same time, this is not on the critical path to correcting black underperformance. This is a rare event, and not a significant reason that black achievement is so far below mainstream America on almost every metric you can measure.
"This happens all the time to black people, hardly ever to white people."
And blacks hate Koreans, and Christians hate Jews, and lots of people hate Muslims. And everyone hates Tom Brady and the cheating Patriots. It's a bummer, and by all means fight to make progress to a future color-blind society. I'm with you.
But: (1) it is fantasy to believe that you can eliminate these deep tribal feelings in humans; (2) it doesn't really matter (to success! -- but yes, it does to justice) because strong culture can overcome this friction, and any racial group has the current opportunity for modern success even without eliminating racism.
If you want success, then work directly on success. Working on racism in order to achieve future success is neither necessary nor sufficient.
> There were no long-term gains from slavery.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that is relevant? Suppose one day I decide to burn down your house instead of going to work. Do you think I should get a pass on the arson charge because it cost me a days' wages and so I'm also worse off than if I hadn't burned your house down? (BTW, that is *quite literally* what happened in the Greenwood massacre.)
> this is not on the critical path to correcting black underperformance
I vehemently disagree. Go back to the arson example. The day after I burn your house down, I go back to work, but now you have to rebuild your house. What is more, even after you have rebuilt your house, you now have to live in fear that I might burn it down again. I've already done it once with impunity, why not again?
BTW, it is far from clear that I don't come out ahead here even though society as a whole might come out behind. Suppose that you and I are colleagues competing for a promotion. If I burn your house down (or even if someone else does it for me), society's total wealth is reduced but my personal wealthy may increase because I now face reduced competition. This is the problem with the prisoner's dilemma: defectors actually do come out ahead when they play against cooperators. Under institutionalized racism, whites get to defect with lower penalties than blacks.
> it is fantasy to believe that you can eliminate these deep tribal feelings in humans
My goal is not to eliminate them. My goal is to make them sufficiently unfashionable that *acting* on them, or even giving them voice, is no longer considered acceptable behavior. I know that racists will never go extinct. I'll settle for them not being able to show their face in public.
@Ron: "Why do you think that is relevant?"
ReplyDeleteWell, that was specifically a response to this line in your original post: "I have shared in an inheritance of wealth that was built in no small measure on the backs of of the forced labor of black people". I don't think it's quite so obvious that you have received inherited wealth that was created by slavery. This is often the kind of argument that is used when arguing for reparations, and I don't think the argument is very solid. But perhaps this is a minor point.
"Do you think I should get a pass on the arson charge"
No, of course not. People that commit crimes should be prosecuted. But that isn't what we're talking about, so I find the analogy to be unfairly inflammatory.
"The day after I burn your house down ... you now have to live in fear that I might burn it down again."
That's where I strongly disagree. Today is not "the day after" slavery. Modern crime and police statistics show that you do not need to live in constant fear of arson today. That isn't what is actually happening in the real world today.
"I've already done it once with impunity, why not again?"
Because it is no longer 1840 or 1921. Today is different than past history.
"society's total wealth is reduced but my personal wealth may increase"
I strongly disagree with your intuition about economics. You're telling a story about middle ages inherited wealth, or liberal fantasies about dividing up the pie. In the modern world, the vast majority of wealth is created, not extracted from others. I completely reject your notion that a strategy of trying to keep part of the population poor, has any significant chance (over the long term) of you coming out wealthier. That's simply not how wealth creation works.
Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs need a wealthy population of customers, in order to get rich themselves. You can't get money from people who don't have any.
"Under institutionalized racism"
This is past history, not modern America.
"I know that racists will never go extinct."
I feel that you are radically underestimating the problem. The problem is not that most people are "nice", but there are a few "bad apples" that are "racists", and we want to shame them. That much has already happened. It is already not acceptable to be a public racist in modern society.
The problem is worse than that. Everybody is tribal. Everybody feels more comfortable, around people like them, who share culture and language and taste in music and food and in-jokes and sports teams. The formation of in-group and out-group loyalty is far deeper than you are suggesting.
For example, have you looked into the Robber's Cave study? Forming in groups and out groups is a core part of human psychology. What is often called "racism" in modern America is often "just" tribalism, being expressed with a coincidental racial marker. Tribalism isn't something that you have a hope in hell of eliminating -- and you do it too (as we all do).
> Today is not "the day after" slavery.
ReplyDeleteLet me change the story a little bit then: suppose my father burned down your father's house (and was never punished for it). So while we were growing up, I got to go to school while you had to spend your days helping to rebuild the family home. Now I have an education and you don't, and so my economic situation is significantly better than yours. Do you think in that situation that I owe you anything?
Today is not "the day after slavery" but the effects of crimes like slavery are measured in generations, not days. There are people alive today who grew up under Jim Crow.
"Let me change the story a little bit then"
ReplyDeleteYes, that's more interesting, and I'm not sure what my answer would be to your new hypothetical. And I maybe even agree with your story, in the real world, through perhaps the 1960's. But it has been half a century since then, time enough for multiple generations. Even if I agree with you that the effects last generations ... that is no longer a good explanation for the current situation.
My claim is that, in the modern world, the influence of personal choice (and current culture) dominates the discrimination that remains in society. (Which is not to say that current racism is zero!) There is sufficient opportunity, and mobility, that a motivated black US citizen has the ability (on average) to achieve success. The lack of measured success is far more due to individual (or cultural/group) choices, than it is due to current racism or even due to the legacy of racism in past history. Those are not good explanations for current black underperformance. (Except for the possibility that past history helped shape the current culture.)
I support and agree with your effort to fight and shame current racists. My prediction is that, even if you were to succeed, it would have little effect on average US black outcomes.
Hey, let's just buy their votes!
ReplyDelete@Ron:
>Let me change the story a little bit then:
The problem with analogies is they're only useful if the two situations being compared are analogous -- which they rarely are.
A better analogy to reparations would be that your father burned down the house of Don's father. Don and his father had to live in a lean-to while Don helped his father rebuild the house after school. Then Luke comes into town to sell the harvest from his farm, and Don demands that he give up some of his grain to compensate for your father burning down his house.
A truer analogy would be your father burned down the house of Don's father. Some years later, you were running for elected office and needed Don's vote. So you decided you could buy Don's vote by paying him from the public treasury (obviously you think little of Don's intellect, as you figure you can corrupt him with cash to support your radical political ideas).
The whole concept of "white privilege" is intellectually vacuous and not useful. My father grew up in a family so poor the State twice removed the children from the family and placed them in foster care. Later, he was wounded by shrapnel in Korea and suffered permanent disability in his left arm. Is that an example of "white privilege"?
Or how about my children's pediatrician. His parents were Holocaust survivors. The families of both his parents were murdered in the Holocaust. His parents met at a refugee center and emigrated to Texas with nothing and started a new life. Is that an example of "white privilege"?
Just who would pay these proposed "reparations"?
Just who would receive these "reparations"?
The whole artifice of "white privilege" and "reparations" is just a false construction for democrats (now communists) to justify buying votes by using money from the public treasury.
Perhaps we need a "Manhattan Project" to end racism. We'll put together a lab filled with top--yet racially, gender, and sexual orientation diverse--scientists to develop a racism vaccine. This vaccine will then be administered to "white people" (need to define that) and end racism forever. Do you think that will solve the problems faced by the black communities in the United States?
> My prediction is that, even if you were to succeed, it would have little effect on average US black outcomes.
ReplyDeleteDo you realize that that is an incredibly racist statement?
Your prediction notwithstanding, I think it's an experiment worth conducting.
@Ron:
ReplyDeletethere is no question that I have received preferential treatment because of the color of my skin. Cops don't harass me. Prospective employers don't look at me sideways.
I don't think this is "privilege", because "privilege" implies that it isn't something you have a right to. You do. Everyone has a right to be treated this way. Everyone has a right to be judged, as Martin Luther King said, on the content of their character, as shown in their actions, not on the color of their skin. I deplore the fact that the United States of America has not lived up to this ideal for everyone, but I don't think calling it a "privilege" helps; I think it makes the problem worse, because it implies that it isn't a fundamental civil right.
@Peter:
ReplyDelete> I don't think this is "privilege"
This is not the time to quibble over terminology. The point is: because I have white skin, I'm better off than my peers with black skin, and this unequal outcome is a direct result of the color of our skin and not justifiable on any rational grounds. Whether you attach the label "privilege" to this state of affairs or not changes nothing of substance and merely serves to distract from the seriousness of the situation.
One of the many things that needs to happen before we can finally move beyond this is for white people to stop whitesplaining to black people how they chose the wrong nomenclature to attach to their cause. White people need to accept the term "white privilege" despite the fact that one could legitimately pick a few linguistic nits over it, not because it's 100% accurate, but because it's what black people have decided to call it. Quibbling over "white privilege" is no different than insisting that "all lives matter." It's not wrong, but it misses the point so badly that anyone who says these things should be ashamed of themselves.
@Ron: "this unequal outcome is a direct result of the color of our skin and not justifiable on any rational grounds"
ReplyDeleteThat's not quite true, unfortunately. Let me ask you an easier question: is it fair that teenage boys have higher car insurance rates than middle aged women? If you're running an insurance company, it is abundantly clear in the data that a male driver less than 20 years old is vastly more likely to experience a future chargeable accident than other drivers.
And yet, the higher price for some particular individual male teenage driver has nothing to do with that particular individual's choices or behavior, and is completely out of their control. Is this a problem in society, or not?
Legally, we have decided that it is ok to use this particular predictive information for differential pricing -- but it is not ok to use similarly predictive zip code information for the same purpose. That's a choice, but a complex one based on values, not necessarily a "rational" one.
So, once you resolve the car insurance problem for me, then naturally I need to ask the currently relevant followup: blacks are 13% of the population, but commit 50% of the murders. What is the appropriate "rational" response that the police (or employers) ought to have, given this data? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm honestly asking. What is your actual answer?
@Ron: "Do you realize that that is an incredibly racist statement?"
ReplyDeleteFirst, I completely disagree with your characterization. I never said anything about blacks being fundamentally inferior. In fact, if I were "king of the blacks", and had absolute power, and could order people around and they would follow my orders ... then I would similarly predict that I could make my loyal black population be superstars in modern society (by following my recommended choices to improve their human capital).
It has nothing to do with racism, with any feeling that blacks are inherently inferior. Instead, it is about properly assigning causation: modern white racism (in my opinion) is not what is causing black underperformance -- even though that racism exists. I put the causation elsewhere.
How is that "racist"?
But the problem with your statement is even worse. I am making claims about how the world actually works. I'm attempting to make true scientific statements about the nature of reality. Truth can't possibly be "racist". You may not like the truth. But the only reasonable response is questioning whether my statements are true or false. Calling a search for truth "racist" is just a conversation stopper, and I'm honestly offended that you would stoop so low.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Ron:
ReplyDeleteThis is not the time to quibble over terminology.
Correctly characterizing the treatment you (and I) have received as a fundamental right is not "quibbling over terminology". It's a necessary step in getting to the right solution. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have our fundamental rights respected don't owe anyone an apology for that. But we do owe all of our fellow citizens the duty of holding the government accountable for respecting everyone's fundamental rights.
> blacks are 13% of the population, but commit 50% of the murders
ReplyDeleteYes, that is true. The question is: which way does the causality run?
> I never said anything about blacks being fundamentally inferior.
That's not the only form that racism takes.
Let's go back to your original statement, the one I claimed was racist:
"My prediction is that, even if you were to succeed [in eliminating all forms of racism], it would have little effect on average US black outcomes."
So while you didn't explicitly say it, you are claiming that *none* of the effects of systemic racism are the cause of black underachievement. OK, so what *is* the cause then? Well, you wrote earlier:
"My claim is that, in the modern world, the influence of personal choice (and current culture) dominates the discrimination that remains in society. (Which is not to say that current racism is zero!) There is sufficient opportunity, and mobility, that a motivated black US citizen has the ability (on average) to achieve success. The lack of measured success is far more due to individual (or cultural/group) choices, than it is due to current racism or even due to the legacy of racism in past history. Those are not good explanations for current black underperformance. (Except for the possibility that past history helped shape the current culture.)"
Your use of parentheticals is telling. It implies that you acknowledge that racism is *potentially* a causal factor, but that *in point of actual fact* it is not. This inference is supported by the fact that you predicted that eliminating racism "would have little effect on average US black outcomes".
So if racism is not a significant causal factor, what else could it possibly be? AFAICT you are saying that poor outcomes for blacks is entirely due to poor choices made by black people of their own free will. That's a racist statement. This is not to say that it is *false*. But it is racist. The question of whether or not something is racist is *completely independent* of whether or not it is true. Many racist statements are in fact true. Black people are generally better basketball players than white people. That is simply an objective fact. It is also racist. Racism and truth are orthogonal. (Note that racism and prejudice are also orthogonal, though it is important to note that they are often *correlated*.)
So, with all that in mind, let's revisit this:
> I never said anything about blacks being fundamentally inferior.
Why not? On what rational basis can you possibly ascribe poor black outcomes to poor choices but not to fundamental inferiority? Has someone done a study that somehow teases out these two causal factors? How would you even design such a study? How could you possibly show that the genes that produce black skin don't also produce brains that make poor choices?
@Ron: Now you're blurring words to lose all significant meaning. At this point, you really need to actually define what you mean by the label "racism". Surely when you accused me ("Do you realize that that is an incredibly racist statement?"), you intended it as an insult, something for me to be ashamed about.
ReplyDeleteBut now you write this: "Black people are generally better basketball players than white people. That is simply an objective fact. It is also racist." I no longer have any idea what you think "racist" is. Nor, in particular, why anyone should be ashamed of (your kind of) "racist" thoughts and speech.
You seem now to be referring to any observation that any human feature might be correlated with (the social concept) of "race". So presumably, even just gathering information about average US incomes of blacks vs. whites vs. Hispanics vs. Asians is "racist", in your mind. Perhaps we should call it "Ron-racism".
In that case, we need to back up a step. What is wrong with Ron-racism? Why shouldn't people engage in it? Especially in the specific example when they are seeking real truths about the world?
"you are claiming that *none* of the effects of systemic racism"
I explicitly said "little effect", not "none". And you even quoted my words.
Moreover, I opened the door for a very strong effect: racism (and slavery, in particular), may very well have shaped modern black culture, to the detriment of current black outcomes. But the causality runs through the current choices, not through the past history or current racism.
"AFAICT you are saying that poor outcomes for blacks is entirely due to poor choices made by black people of their own free will."
Yes, but I suspect that you misunderstand "free will" as well. People's decisions are a product of genetics plus environment. Upbringing and culture have a lot to do with choices that are made. This is why I am (mildly) arguing against BLM: I believe it leads to a culture ("victimhood") that results in more people making poor choices.
But there is no "free will" that is somehow separate from your physical brain.
"That's a racist statement."
So what? At this point, you need to start defending why Ron-racism is even a bad thing.
"On what rational basis can you possibly ascribe poor black outcomes to poor choices but not to fundamental inferiority? ... How could you possibly show that the genes that produce black skin don't also produce brains that make poor choices?"
I had no comment on the "why" of the choices, and there are plenty of other good candidates (such as culture, e.g. "acting white", BLM, glorification of violence and promiscuity, etc.). But maybe average group IQ of blacks, as a population, is lower, and maybe that matters too. It's actually not that important to me. Whatever the truth is, is what the truth is. I completely reject your claim that actual truth is "racist", in any shameful way. We all need to deal with the world as it actually is, not as you wish it were.
My point is that blacks have far more power than BLM "victimhood" suggests. It actually is within the power of individual choices, to have dramatic influence on outcomes. If we changed the culture of the national narrative from one of blaming racists, to instead one of encouraging self-responsibility, my prediction is that we would have far more success in improving actual black outcomes.
> At this point, you really need to actually define what you mean by the label "racism".
ReplyDeleteLet's go with the Wikipedia definition:
"Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another."
> Surely when you accused me ("Do you realize that that is an incredibly racist statement?"), you intended it as an insult, something for me to be ashamed about.
An insult, no. Something to be ashamed of, yes.
But let's first be clear about what I accused you of. I accused you of making a racist statement. I did not accuse you of *being* a racist. Those two things are distinct. Doing a bad thing does not make you a bad person.
> blacks have far more power than BLM "victimhood" suggests
That may well be, but it's irrelevant. The question of whether blacks have more agency in this matter than they are choosing to exercise is orthogonal to the question of whether whites have more responsibility than they are willing to admit.
> the causality runs through the current choices
Indeed it does. So consider this: imagine that you're hiring someone for a job. You have two candidates, one black, one white. They are prima facie equally qualified. So, being a good Bayesian, you adjust your prior based on your belief that blacks generally make poor life choices and hire the white applicant. This all seems a perfectly rational thing to do, well grounded in reason and evidence.
Now consider the effect that your decision has on the black applicant who didn't get the job, especially if she comes to learn that the *reason* she didn't get the job is not because of any poor choices that she actually made, but because you applied sound Bayesian reasoning well grounded in data and concluded that she was *more likely* to make poor choices because she was black. How do you think that would make her feel? What kind of impact do you think this might have on the actual choices she makes? Do you not see how this might *cause* her to make "poor choices"? What exactly is the point of working hard if the end result is going to be that she doesn't get hired because of the color of her skin, notwithstanding the sound reasoning behind the decision?
Now consider the same story, but this time it's not *you* making the hiring decision, it's *me*. And I hold you in high regard and am inclined to believe that things that you say are true. And since you told me that black people make poor choices, I believe it too. So I also hire the white candidate on what appears to me to be sound reasoning and evidence.
Now multiply that by tens of millions of good white Bayesians all looking to each other for advice and guidance on how to make good hiring decisions.
@Ron: "groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance"
ReplyDeleteI agree with this part ... but only "on average", not for any particular individual.
"based on the superiority of one race over another"
And I strongly disagree with that part. There is no "superiority of one race" in anything that I've said.
So, are my comments "racist", or not? Is your comment about basketball players "racist"? I don't think it follows the definition you now are proposing. I don't think you're being consistent. You're just throwing out a thoughtless insult. You have not been consistently applying this new definition.
"Something to be ashamed of, yes."
I completely reject your claim that I should be ashamed. I stand by my original statement (that eliminating racism would not eliminate black underperformance), and I am neither ashamed of it, nor do I believe that I should be ashamed of it. (Nor do I believe that it is "racist".) I assert that you're wrong about all of this.
And I resent that your intellectual disagreement with me, has lowered you to claiming that I should be "ashamed" of my views.
"Doing a bad thing does not make you a bad person"
Fair enough. But I also reject that I've done any "bad thing".
"The question of whether blacks have more agency in this matter than they are choosing to exercise is orthogonal to the question of whether whites have more responsibility than they are willing to admit."
Yes. I agree. So what? That doesn't contradict anything I've ever said. From the beginning, I said that I support the effort to reduce or eliminate ("real") racism.
"So consider this"
I noticed that you refused to answer the direct questions that I posed to you. (E.g. how should police respond to blacks committing 50% of the murders? Propose an actual policing policy, please.) But I will nonetheless answer your questions, even though you won't do me the same courtesy.
"You have two candidates, one black, one white. They are prima facie equally qualified."
I hope you realize how unrealistic your scenario is. In the modern US, blacks get hired (or admitted to Harvard) with worse objective qualifications. Average Asian student SAT scores at Berkeley are far, far above average black student SAT scores. That is what is currently happening in the real world, not your hypothetical scenario.
"Do you not see how this might *cause* her to make "poor choices"?"
Yes, of course I see that. Lots of things cause people to make poor choices. It is still the case that if somehow they could be convinced to make good choices instead, the vast majority of this problem would go away.
"Now multiply that by tens of millions of good white Bayesians all looking to each other for advice and guidance on how to make good hiring decisions."
I totally understand the situation. Your failure is that you believe this is key to black underperformance. It isn't. At least, the hiring decisions themselves are not. Jews faced this too. So did Chinese laborers. It turns out that Bayesian evidence-based policies like you describe (or even actual pure racism!) won't stop communities with good human capital decision making from succeeding -- even if the racism remains.
As I said from the beginning: in the modern US (different from slavery or Jim Crow), eliminating (remaining) white racism towards blacks is neither necessary nor sufficient to result in black achievement. It's a problem, and a moral evil, and should be worked on. But not to the exclusion of the actual changes that would in fact make a real difference.
Atheists Can't Help But Be Racist
ReplyDelete@Ron:
>This is not the time to quibble over terminology.
Words mean things. How a problem is described is important. The Left knows this and utilizes it as a political tool frequently. An inaccurate or misleading label or categorization is a method to try and drive political change that is unrelated to the true problem. "Black Lives Matter" is specifically a misdirect for a communist political movement, one which includes a convicted terrorist as one of its officers.
@Ron:
>One of the many things that needs to happen before we can finally move beyond this is for white people to stop whitesplaining to black people how they chose the wrong nomenclature to attach to their cause. White people need to accept the term "white privilege" despite the fact that one could legitimately pick a few linguistic nits over it, not because it's 100% accurate, but because it's what black people have decided to call it.
Nice made-up word there, "whitesplaining," to try and summarily dismiss criticism of your irrational position. A political power tool, not an intellectual or reasoned argument. Also what evidence do you have that "it's what black people have decided to call it" -- are you speaking for all black people now? Or are you speaking for a radical fringe who is trying to stoke racial tension in order to achieve your radical political agenda?
@Ron:
>The point is: because I have white skin, I'm better off than my peers with black skin, and this unequal outcome is a direct result of the color of our skin and not justifiable on any rational grounds.
Really? How do you determine who is your "peer"? Do you know of any black peers who are worse off than you, or are you just assuming?
The United States is the least racist country in the world. It's unlikely that any peer of yours would fail to succeed due to racial bias. Now, idiocy still exists, so further improvements are still possible.
@Don:
> blacks are 13% of the population, but commit 50% of the murders
@Ron:
>>Yes, that is true. The question is: which way does the causality run?
Causality is nonsensical for a race descriptor variable. Consider:
race(black) --> higher murder rate
higher murder rate --> race(black)
A higher murder rate can't cause someone to be black.
Many correlates of crime have been discovered. Crime can be correlated against numerous measures and attributes -- biological; race, ethnicity, and immigration; early life experiences; adult behavior; physical health; psychological traits; socioeconomic factors; geographic factors; and weather, season, and climate! Some correlated factors are more suitable for intervention to try and reduce criminal behavior; the success of such interventions will depend on how causal the factor is to criminal behavior (indeed, one way to determine causality is to manipulate the factor and see if it affects criminality). There about 50-60 factors that have shown correlation to criminal behavior.
Racism vs. Truth, Stereotypes
ReplyDelete@Ron:
>Let's go with the Wikipedia definition:
Not a very good definition: "Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another."
I would amend it to "Racism the false belief that ..."
@Ron:
>That's a racist statement. This is not to say that it is *false*. But it is racist. The question of whether or not something is racist is *completely independent* of whether or not it is true. Many racist statements are in fact true. Black people are generally better basketball players than white people. That is simply an objective fact. It is also racist. Racism and truth are orthogonal. (Note that racism and prejudice are also orthogonal, though it is important to note that they are often *correlated*.)
You need to look up what "orthogonal" means.
Truth cannot be racist, as it is not false.
Your statement about blacks and basketball is a stereotype, not racism. It is also false, as there is a hidden variable that explains who goes to the NBA. The hidden variable is living in ghettos. In the early 20th century, the best NBA players were Ossie Schetman, Nat Holman, and Sammy Kaplan -- the children of european Jewish immigrants who were then living in city ghettos.
Now, if you split anything into two parts, you can identify differences between them -- differences that are "statistically significant." If you analyze IQ by race, you find a one-standard deviation between whites and blacks. Blacks are more likely to have the B+ blood type. The 2R allele of the MAOA gene is present in 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men. The 2R allele has been shown to increase the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence. As an atheist, these facts might lead you to make a value judgement between the races. To Christians, these facts are irrelevant -- everyone is a child of God, made in His image, and are equal before Him.
It's the Environment, Stupid
ReplyDelete@Don:
> I never said anything about blacks being fundamentally inferior.
@Ron:
>>Why not? On what rational basis can you possibly ascribe poor black outcomes to poor choices but not to fundamental inferiority? Has someone done a study that somehow teases out these two causal factors? How would you even design such a study? How could you possibly show that the genes that produce black skin don't also produce brains that make poor choices?
Just because you can't think of a rational basis for poor black outcomes other than "fundamental inferiority" doesn't mean that such a rational basis doesn't exist.
You're clearly making the fundamental attribution error. The only explanation you can think of is that of biological inferiority.
You fail to consider the possibility that blacks aren't inferior, but many of them live in bad situations/environments. You can study this by comparing whites and blacks living in the same situations.
What Don is suggesting is building skills within the black community to overcome the negative, reinforcing aspects of the bad situation they are living in. People in bad environments develop bad behaviors, and they create a social hierarchy to value and reinforce those bad behaviors. Individuals can overcome that if they have the skills and resilience to resist it. One way to build resilience is via . . . . . . religious faith.
@Ron:
>. So consider this: imagine that you're hiring someone for a job. You have two candidates, one black, one white. They are prima facie equally qualified.
Never happens. No two people are ever equal.
@Ron:
>So, being a good Bayesian, you adjust your prior based on your belief that blacks generally make poor life choices and hire the white applicant. This all seems a perfectly rational thing to do, well grounded in reason and evidence.
This is just stupid. A black candidate presenting with appropriate qualifications for the job has demonstrated, by achieving those qualifications, that the candidate has made good life choices in the past. Your "bayesian reasoning" is not at all rational, nor grounded in reason or evidence.
@Don: FYI, I am planning to reply to you, but passions seem to be running high so I want to make sure I'm not running off the rails. Towards that end, I've solicited a sanity check from another person, but they haven't responded yet.
ReplyDelete@Publius:
> You fail to consider the possibility that blacks aren't inferior, but many of them live in bad situations/environments.
Not only did I not fail to consider it, I specifically pointed this out. The question is *why* do many of them live in bad situations/environments. I say it is in large part because they were first enslaved for 250 years, and then systematically and overtly discriminated against for another 100, and then systematically but more covertly discriminated against for another 60, bringing us to the present day.
If You Think You Can Do It, Or You Think You Can't -- You're Right
ReplyDelete@Ron:
>I say it is in large part because they were first enslaved for 250 years, and then systematically and overtly discriminated against for another 100, and then systematically but more covertly discriminated against for another 60, bringing us to the present day.
You believe this based on what, your intuition?
Your views haven't been formed via evidence, experiment, and reason. You are following the latest dogma the political left, unaware of the prior history and the harm it has caused to the people you are concerned with. Here is the history of the left's shifting explanation of socioeconomic differences:
1. Progressive era (roughly before WW2): differences were attributed to race; eugenics was the "scientific explanation"
2. Liberal era (after WW2 to about 1980): differences were attributed to racism; the racial problem is primarily inside the minds of white people
3. Multiculturalism era (1980's to present): an extension of the liberal era, but with the extension of the insistence that the particular cultures found amount the less fortunate groups are not to be blamed for disparities in income, education, or crime rates -- but are in fact, a net positive; you can't find any fault in any group that is less fortunate -- there are no behaviors that they need to change, society needs to accept them as they are -- but the effects are to change (and if they don't, it's society's fault).
You're also following the 8 step process for building the politics of resentment:
1. Note a distribution of success.
2. Identify winners and losers.
3. Claim that the losers are losing only because they are oppressed by the winners.
4. Claim allegiance with the losers.
5. Feel secure in your comprehensive explanation of the world.
6. Revel in your moral superiority.
7. Target your resentment toward your newly discovered enemies.
8. Repeat. Forever. Everywhere.
Having completed the first 7, you're now working on #8.
Yet, as usual, the political left is wrong, and based on the wrong attribution of causes, promote harmful policies that only make the problem worse. YOU are part of the problem.
Here is the correct explanation, with correct attribution of causes, fully reasoned out: Intellectuals and Race. For those who prefer video, there is Interview on Intellectuals and Race.
It's been two weeks, and I don't (yet) see a follow up from Ron. Which is fine. But I just saw a new potentially relevant post by an econ blogger (Scott Sumner): "The Truth of Racism. I'm very sympathetic to Sumner's perspective. Perhaps his wording is more constructive than mine has been.
ReplyDeleteI haven't responded yet for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the issue is so emotionally fraught. But I feel the need to reiterate, because I think this is really important: there is a big difference between making a racist remark or even supporting a racist policy and being a racist.
ReplyDeleteI never said you were a racist, only that you made a racist remark. But in between flying a Confederate flag and burning crosses on people's front yards and being Ghandi there remains a very broad spectrum of possibilities, and likewise between legalized slavery and a truly egalitarian meritocracy. Just because we've come a long way doesn't mean we've arrived.
@Ron: I totally get that you think there is a spectrum here, and there are worse behavior / remarks and better behavior / remarks.
ReplyDeleteI think you have totally missed the point. I'm not sure if you bothered to read Sumner's post or not, but his real point is that this is not a single line. It's a much more complex space. I'm not confused about whether you think I "am" a racist, vs. "made a racist remark" or "supported a racist policy". That isn't the point at all.
The point is what the word "racist" even means. And whether (based on various proposed definitions), it is even a bad thing, or something to be ashamed of.
"A truly egalitarian meritocracy" is not the extreme point on your spectrum. This is what this entire argument is about. You are taking people who advocate for "a truly egalitarian meritocracy" and calling those people racists.
People who are "woke" are not advocating for "a truly egalitarian meritocracy". This is the entire core of what we are arguing about. It frustrates me that we can't even agree what the argument is about. You have missed the point entirely.
> I'm not sure if you bothered to read Sumner's post
ReplyDeleteI did. Very carefully. Twice.
> The point is what the word "racist" even means.
Well, earlier I defined "racism":
"Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another."
So a racist (noun) is someone who subscribes to racism. And "racist" as an *adjective* (as in "a racist remark") means: pertaining to or reflective of racism.
> "A truly egalitarian meritocracy" is not the extreme point on your spectrum.
What is then? (And why do you think it matters?)
> You are taking people who advocate for "a truly egalitarian meritocracy" and calling those people racists.
I suspect that what you wrote is not what you meant. The only people that I have called racists here are Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. I don't think either of them can be mistaken for someone who advocates for a truly egalitarian meritocracy.
> I think you have totally missed the point.
That is a possibility I am willing to seriously consider, but you don't help your case when you say that I've said things that I have not said, that are in fact pretty much the exact opposite of what I've actually said.
This is one of the reasons I've taken so long to respond, because I feel like I'm standing in the middle of a mine field and mines are still going off despite the fact that I've stopped walking.
@Ron: "I did. Very carefully. Twice."
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't the least bit clear to me. You didn't mention anything about the complex distinction (about what "racist" means) that Sumner described. And you for some reason thought it important to repeat your own distinction between a "racist person" vs a "racist act" -- even though it seems irrelevant to Sumner's post.
"Well, earlier I defined "racism""
You certainly wrote down a definition. But your casual use of the term comes nowhere close to following your own definition. You're constantly playing a motte and bailey game with language about racism.
"What is then?"
You seem to want to view this topic as a single "racist" spectrum, where the "really bad" things are 100% racist, but the only-a-little bad things are perhaps only 10% racist. And we're all (the "good" people) striving for 0% racist.
I completely reject your framework about the concept "racist" (as does Sumner, in his post). It isn't a single line; it's a complex space of meaning. Well meaning, thoughtful, "good" people, do not necessarily all share the same end goals on this topic.
"The only people that I have called racists"
I apologize. You seem to be returning to your "racist person" vs. "racist act/speech" distinction that matters so much to you. It seems completely irrelevant to me. What I meant, is that when people advocate for "truly egalitarian policies", you will claim that they are advocating for racist policies. I was arguing that that is clearly not the "0% racist" part of your own spectrum that you claimed it was. But we got distracted, because I didn't pay attention (and don't even know why you care) about whether someone is "a racist", or merely expressed racist views.
"are in fact pretty much the exact opposite of what I've actually said"
You're focusing on the wrong part. The issue is not whether the racist part is the person or speech or policy. The issue is, at a fundamental level, what does "racist" mean, and is it even bad? I'm sorry that I blurred your person/speech/policy distinction. It clearly matters to you for some reason, but it's hard for me to pay close attention to it.
"mines are still going off despite the fact that I've stopped walking"
OK, but if you look at this last exchange, I tried to very neutrally just suggest another author's exploration of this topic, and that it might be useful or helpful to read and think about his perspective when exploring all this. I didn't comment on you. Yet your response included "I never said you were a racist, only that you made a racist remark. ... Just because we've come a long way doesn't mean we've arrived." Which seems like a pretty direct criticism of me -- and one that I reject. Is it really such a surprise that I might feel defensive after that exchange?
(I realize you must think it's a big deal that you not accuse someone of being a racist person, but only that the remark they made was racist. I still don't know why you think that matters so much. But my problem is that you want to shame me for exploring the truth, and I won't accept that. I don't see how the person/remark distinction matters in the least. It certainly doesn't make me feel any better.)
@Ron: "a very broad spectrum of possibilities ... between legalized slavery and a truly egalitarian meritocracy"
ReplyDeleteYou seemed confused why I objected, not only to your description of racism as a single metric, but even to the description of the endpoints.
Perhaps this ("woke") essay by Randal Pinkett on CNN will help: The seven most common myths about racial equity.
Surely you are sympathetic to most of Pinkett's points. But let me point your attention to "myth #7" at the end: "Myth #7: Being colorblind is the gold standard for seeing other people. ... And the danger of this myth is that it can also lead you to thinking that the workplace is a pure meritocracy ... I want you to see my color. The gold standard is not to be colorblind but ... to be "color brave""
Pinkett would not agree with your claim that the "least racist" policy is "a truly egalitarian meritocracy".
> your description of racism as a single metric
ReplyDeleteI never meant to imply that racism was a single metric, only that it is not a boolean.
> Pinkett would not agree with your claim that the "least racist" policy is "a truly egalitarian meritocracy".
That is far from clear. Did you watch the video that he linked to, the TED talk by Mellody Hobson? In it she defines color blindness as "a learned behavior where we pretend not to notice race". I agree that color-blindness thus defined is not something we should aspire to. What I think we ought to be aspiring to is not *pretending* not to notice skin color, but getting to the point where we *actually* do not notice skin color in much the same way that we actually (for the most part) do not notice eye color or hair color.
@Ron: "racism ... is not a boolean."
ReplyDeleteWonderful! I agree with you. (I also think it's even more complicated than that: it isn't even an "ordered field", as demonstrated by Sumner's examples. But at least we agree at this first stage!)
"we ought to be aspiring to ... not notice skin color in much the same way that we ... do not notice eye color or hair color."
I agree again! (And have always loved that analogy.)
Alas, I suspect many "woke" people do not agree. Or, even if they agree on the long-term end goals, certainly disagree strongly on the best path to get there from where we are today.
Anyway, given the "minefield" nature of this issue, I'm very happy to go 2-for-2 with you today.
@Ron, @Don:
ReplyDeleteThat was quite the interesting conversation. I'm afraid I side with @Don on the position that no true statement can be "racist". That is because we're operating on a fact/value dichotomy and facts do not [completely] determine values. The Wikipedia definition of 'racism' seems to want to straddle that line:
>> Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. (WP: Racism)
fact-like: "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance"
value-like: "can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another"
Can we agree on that? If I do the fact-like thing but not the value-like thing, I'm not a racist. Now, I suppose you can contend that on when uttering particular fact-like things without any value-like component, I'm engaged in dog-whistle politics. But how can EE&R happen if stating various facts becomes shameful?
> no true statement can be "racist"
ReplyDeleteWow.
"Not all Mexicans are rapists" is a true statement. But if you think it is therefore not a racist one, well, I just don't know what to say.
Actually no, you're playing with the difference between a narrow formal meaning and a wider informal meaning. The difference:
ReplyDeleteformal: There is at least one Mexican who is not a rapist.
informal: There no quantifiers more appropriate than the bold: "Not all Mexicans are rapists."
Most people, most of the time, understand things informally. So when you're talking to someone and they are operating by the informal mode of understanding, "Not all Mexicans are rapists" is a false statement.
Flipping between formal & informal, between narrow & wide, is frequently a source of humor, but it is also a way to manipulate people, to have plausible deniability and engage in motte and bailey rhetorical tactics.
Not All Mexicans Are Rapists
ReplyDeleteSo, then, is Saqib Javed a racist for shouting it out at A Trump rally?
@Luke:
ReplyDeleteI'm not "playing" with anything. I'm showing you how your claim, that no true statement can be "racist", is false by providing a counterexample. True statements can be racist. There are a number of ways to construct statements that are both true and racist. Taking advantage of the subtleties and nuance of natural language is one of them. That's not cheating. This entire issue is one of subtlety and nuance. The difference between "black lives matter" and "all lives matter" does not turn on technicalities, it turns on subtlety and nuance.
Donald Trump won the presidency in no small measure because he mastered the art of proclaiming himself to be on the side of racists without actually coming out and saying overtly racist things. My example was actually intended to be an allusion to Trump's statement when he announced his candidacy: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Nothing in those words is factually incorrect on a narrow reading. But again, if you don't think that statement was racist, and *intended* to be so, then again I don't know what to say.
@Ron:
ReplyDeleteSorry, but it's factually incorrect that there is no better quantifier than:
(1) "Not all Mexicans are rapists."
For example, here's a better one:
(2) "Exceedingly few Mexicans are rapists."
When you carve up reality into (1) and (2), one of them is objectively false. Not technically false, not subtly false, not nuanced in a false way. Objectively false.
You know that people often mean multiple different things when they use language, yes? Some of them can be true and some of them can be false. You picked a great example of this. And even if the person only means one of the things, they can be heard according to multiple meanings. Not all innocence is excusable; society has many publicly established rules for what various locutions mean in which circumstances. Politicians are masters at knowing the rules—even multiple sets of rules for different constituencies.
If anything, you're so well-trained to only "count" the narrow, formal of language, that all the other meanings only show up as tiny signals. To me, they're exceedingly loud. Sometimes I have overestimated the intended intensity of the non-formal meanings with you. But I work very hard to discern the total impact that a given locution is meant to have on a person—how it is designed to shape their understanding of the world (and/or themselves). And if it shapes their understanding in a false way, then the locution is false. Period. Half-truths are some of the most dangerous things in the world. You know that Goebbels said to be as truthful as possible with propaganda, right?
BTW, some time ago you played this formal/informal, narrow/wide game with the serpent's words in Genesis 3:1–7. You found a way to interpret “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” in a technically true way, discarding any and all meanings which are obviously false. The way I look at it, the serpent was obviously making YHWH out to be exceedingly prohibitive. The serpent was almost completely wrong, per Genesis 2:15–17. But you wanted to let the serpent be technically correct. Suffice it to say that the serpent's deviousness is what gets A&E to give YHWH the middle finger and switch their loyalty to him. Maybe possibly this is a lesson as to the power of rhetoric. Or maybe it's a tall tale and we could not possibly learn anything of particular value from it. :-D
We have gotten ridiculously far afield here. The original statement that began all this fuss was:
ReplyDelete"I support and agree with your effort to fight and shame current racists. My prediction is that, even if you were to succeed, it would have little effect on average US black outcomes."
You cannot defend this statement on the grounds of truth because it's a prediction about the outcome of an experiment we haven't conducted, so we don't even know if it's true. It may very well be. But consider this example:
"Black people are intellectually inferior to white people because the tropical environment which produces evolutionary pressure for dark skin also produces less evolutionary pressure for intellectual capacity."
That statement could also be true. I'll even go so far as to say that I find it a plausible hypothesis. But I also think that statement is racist, and I would stand by that assessment *even if* it were to turn out that it is true.
@Ron: "The original statement that began all this fuss was"
ReplyDeleteThat was my statement.
"consider this example ... But I also think that statement is racist, and I would stand by that assessment *even if* it were to turn out that it is true."
I understand you, and agree with this statement about yourself.
It shows that you are a small-minded, evil bigot, who has abandoned science and "evidence, experiment and reason" in exchange the convenience of current political correctness. You're a terrible person, and you deserve to be shunned and shamed and ignored.
I miss the old Ron, who was a much bigger, more honest, and more noble person. Alas.
> the convenience of current political correctness
ReplyDeleteIt turns out that I am actually not guilty of that particular charge. I wrote the following back in 2003:
"I ask the blogosphere to hear my confession. I am a first-generation immigrant to the United States. Neither I nor any of my ancestors ever owned a slave. Nonetheless, I have benefited from having white skin at the expense of those who have black skin. I had no direct hand in creating the system that provided me with these benefits, but I accepted them without complaint, and that makes me culpable. I have looked at black men in the night and felt more fear than I would have if it had been a white man. I am ashamed of this. I am sorry. I ask for forgiveness -- and understanding. I, and I think many white people, do what we do out of ignorance and weakness and not out of malicious intent (though to be sure there are those who would oppress blacks - and Mexicans and Jews and gays and Muslims... - out of pure evil) and we haven't got a freakin' clue what to actually do to start making things right (though repealing the Draconian penalities for crack cocaine posession would probably be a good start)."
I'm proud of that. I'm a little less proud that it took me 17 years to say anything more about it, though I don't think that quite rises to the level of "evil bigot".
@Ron: "It turns out that I am actually not guilty of that particular charge. I wrote the following"
ReplyDeleteSorry, no, that's not how it works. You say a lot of things. Just because you may once have said something that you're proud of, doesn't excuse your current bad actions. I provided direct evidence for your statements that show you are an "evil bigot". You don't get out of it by referencing other, different, statements. That's as worthless as "I can't be a racist -- one of my friends is black!"
Just to be crystal clear, this sequence is most obviously why you are an evil bigot:
Don: "My prediction is that, even if you were to succeed, it would have little effect on average US black outcomes."
Ron: "Do you realize that that is an incredibly racist statement? ... Something to be ashamed of, yes."
I made an intellectual claim about how the universe truthfully works (and disputed your wrong causal theory of current black outcomes). Your response was not to engage honestly, but instead just to attempt to "shame" me into silence. You're an asshole.
"Judge talent at its best but character at its worst." (Lord Acton)
@Ron:
ReplyDelete> "Black people are intellectually inferior to white people because the tropical environment which produces evolutionary pressure for dark skin also produces less evolutionary pressure for intellectual capacity."
>
> That statement could also be true. I'll even go so far as to say that I find it a plausible hypothesis. But I also think that statement is racist, and I would stand by that assessment *even if* it were to turn out that it is true.
You chose the Wikipedia definition:
>> Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. (WP: Racism)
Are you defining 'superiority' as moral superiority, or some other kind? If moral, then your quoted claim is not true without a premise such as:
(1) intellectual superiority ⇒ moral superiority
I'll bet this is a pretty dubious claim, if you look at history. It's dubious if you look at science, too: Kahan, Peters, Dawson, and Slovic 2017 Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government. The smarter you are, the more bullshit you can (and statistically: will) rationalize. Just look at how happy we are to purchase "Made in China" products, while they have ≈ 1,000,000 Uighurs in concentration camps. I'd be willing to bet that the less intellectually superior people might be more willing to forgo the benefit of trade and lower cost of goods, in order to apply moral pressure on China.
@Ron:
ReplyDelete> Don: My prediction is that, even if you were to succeed, it would have little effect on average US black outcomes.
> Ron: Do you realize that that is an incredibly racist statement?
For the life of me, I have no idea how this is logical, Ron. Is there a way for you to tease out formal vs. informal meaning or suppressed premises or anything like that? Please don't claim that people should just magically see it; that would be awfully anti-Enlightenment, pro-Authority.
> Just because you may once have said something that you're proud of, doesn't excuse your current bad actions.
ReplyDeleteI never said it did.
I can't do this any more. You win. You were right. I was wrong. I'm sorry.
America Is Not A Racist Country
ReplyDelete@Ron:
>Donald Trump won the presidency in no small measure because he mastered the art of proclaiming himself to be on the side of racists without actually coming out and saying overtly racist things.
Wrong. There is no large "racist constituency" that either party is trying to win over. The American people are not inherently, or implicitly, racist. Politicians don't win elections by being secretly racist and sending coded signals ("dog whistles") to the "racist constituency" to get their votes. If that were true, Democrats would be doing it all the time. If it was possible to win elections by out-racisting the other candidate, Democrats would be perfecting that skill.
>My example was actually intended to be an allusion to Trump's statement when he announced his candidacy: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best.. . . They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Nothing in those words is factually incorrect on a narrow reading. But again, if you don't think that statement was racist, and *intended* to be so, then again I don't know what to say.
You should say you're wrong. Donald Trump is not a racist. Just think of that -- he's not a racist. Can you even consider that possibility, or is your mind closed? How would one interpret his remarks, knowing that he is not a racist? You should interpret it as illegal immigration is a problem, as we (the citizens of the United States), have no control over it, and therefore no control over who is arriving -- and it very may well be a population enriched with criminals. By re-establishing control over immigration on the border with Mexico, we can have better control over who is coming to our country, and we can select only the best people to admit to our country.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats Replace Reality With Lies
ReplyDeleteYou've uncritically bought the Democrat narrative that America is a racist country, and that all Republicans are racist*, and that Republicans win votes by sending "dog whistles" to their racist base (who, presumably would just stay home if they couldn't vote for a racist). It's all Democrat bullshit -- bullshit. "Structural racism" and "White privilege" are both false and invalid. It's intellectual crapola.
Can you even consider that non-racist citizens could be concerned with uncontrolled immigration across the border? Can you even consider having that debate, or is it forbidden?
Democrats create a tapestry of lies -- an entire environmental ecosystem of lies, which make their opponents look bad and make their policies look rational. It's all an absurd fantasy of lies. They've apparently given up on trying to make policy arguments based on objective facts -- instead, they just tell lies, and more lies, over and over, and pretend that this fantasy of lies is the objective reality. There strategy is to just lie really well and often, and that will win elections. That is how communism is sold, and they've become, recently, a communist party. Of course they'll lie and say they're not -- and if you call them on it, they might just get violent and beat you. Or cancel you. They have transformed into communist fascists, enforcing their orthodoxy by threats, ostracization, and violence. Their biggest and most utilized lie is to label their opponents as racist. If they don't like the policy proposal, it's racist and anyone supporting it is racist. Want to eliminate the penny and have the lowest coin be a nickel? That's Racist!
Yet you swallow whatever the Democrats and the mainstream media ejaculate into your mouth. No independent thought, investigation, or analysis on your part -- you just swallow the party line.
Motivated readers might like to go visit the Manhattan Contrarian for an example of independent thought, investigation, evidence, reason, and analysis.
@Ron:
>I can't do this any more. You win. You were right. I was wrong. I'm sorry.
Won. That means I win too!
That has to hurt. I hope it hurts a lot.
* Ironic given that the Republican Party was founded to abolish slavery, and the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, actually did so.
@Ron: "I can't do this any more."
ReplyDeleteIt's fine if you don't think this is a productive and valuable use of your time. Life is short. By all means, use your time well. If this is a waste for you, I support you redirecting your energies elsewhere. That's a good life choice.
"You win. You were right. I was wrong. I'm sorry."
Alas, although this has the wording of an apology, and I wish I could accept it, your previous sentence completely undercuts everything you say here at the end. Your words here are not credible. You may be sorry that the conversation ended up in such a negative space. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that you're actually sorry for any of your own choices or actions or statements. These words seem closer to sarcasm than to an honest expression.
It was fun, when you were on your moral high horse, and criticizing and insulting others, wasn't it? That sense of moral power is uplifting. You had plenty of interest in the subject then, and plenty of energy to compose long posts and comments.
But when one of your victims doesn't accept the role you have assigned, and starts to fight back, and gives you a taste of your own medicine ... it's not so much fun any more, is it? So you take all your toys and go home in a huff. I put up with your attacks, took some time to calm down, and came back and re-engaged. But you give up.
Boy, you can dish it out, but you sure can't take it, can you?
@Don:
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is it that you think I dished out that I can't take?
@Don:
ReplyDelete> What exactly is it that you think I dished out that I can't take?
That was not a rhetorical question.
@Ron: FWIW, I'm taking time to calm down, rather than responding heatedly in the moment.
ReplyDelete"What exactly is it that you think I dished out that I can't take?"
Responding to a rational, intellectual, factual discussion with insults: "Do you realize that that is an incredibly racist statement?" (Even Luke, hardly a supporter of mine, can't see how your response makes any kind of logical sense!)
Attempting to use shame instead of reason: "Something to be ashamed of, yes."
Trying to escape on a technicality by playing word games: "I never said you were a racist, only that you made a racist remark."
A claim that you were going to seek the evaluation of a neutral third party on this debate ... and then never any follow up about what the judgment was: "I want to make sure I'm not running off the rails. Towards that end, I've solicited a sanity check from another person."
Dismissively pretending that you answered a difficult question long ago, without ever actually answering the question: "Yes, I have." (Luke, again, supports that you were being non-responsive.)
Name-calling to get an emotional reaction (thinly excused by you as "only a hypothetical"): "you are mother fucking racist scum".
When you fail to provide a convincing rational argument, you don't concede or change your mind ... but instead you quit: "I can't do this any more."
All of this is intellectually dishonest. You don't seem willing to even consider that you might be the one who is wrong. You apply a debate style that doesn't serve "reason", and then when it doesn't work, or when the same methods are directed back at you, you quit.
I was trying to have a difficult conversation about a challenging, complex, frustrating situation in society. You were merely doing public virtue signalling. So you attacked me to make yourself feel better. And then when you started getting called out on your behavior, you quit.
Well, there's a lot to unpack there. Let's start with this one:
ReplyDelete> Name-calling to get an emotional reaction (thinly excused by you as "only a hypothetical"): "you are mother fucking racist scum".
Exactly what kind of emotional reaction do you think I was trying to elicit with this? Do you think that I was trying to piss you off for the sake of pissing you off?
@Ron: "Do you think that I was trying to piss you off for the sake of pissing you off?"
ReplyDeleteYeah, pretty much, yes.
I think you tried an intellectual argument, and failed to be convincing. So you seem to have assumed that I must be too stupid or ignorant to actually understand the experience of a black person in America. So you attempted to immerse me in such an experience myself, with the hope that I would have a visceral emotional reaction, which would finally let me see your "truth", and be convinced about your position which you somehow couldn't convey rationally.
Again, it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that I might not be quite so stupid, might already understand that black experience, and might disagree with you anyway. For reasons that I explained calmly, politely, and rationally.
But you are so convinced that you are right, that you don't bother taking the intellectual discussion seriously, and instead you're happy to rely on "cheating" rhetoric and propaganda. Because you're an arrogant asshole.
> So you seem to have assumed that I must be too stupid or ignorant to actually understand the experience of a black person in America.
ReplyDeleteNo, I didn't assume this. I concluded it based on evidence, specifically, your claim that even if one were to succeed in eliminating systemic discrimination against blacks, that "it would have little effect on average US black outcomes." I can see no way anyone can reach that conclusion if they understand what black people have to endure that white people don't.
And please note that I in no way mean to imply that I possess that understanding. I don't. And the reason I don't is the same reason you don't. It has nothing to do with being stupid or ignorant, it has to do with being white. I'm white. I cannot possibly have any first-hand knowledge of what it is like to be black. I can only act on the evidence and the testimony of people who are actually black.
> So you attempted to immerse me in such an experience myself, with the hope that I would have a visceral emotional reaction, which would finally let me see your "truth", and be convinced about your position which you somehow couldn't convey rationally.
Yes, that's more or less correct.
Note that you just contradicted yourself:
Me: Do you think that I was trying to piss you off for the sake of pissing you off?
You: Yeah, pretty much, yes.
You yourself just described my true motive, which was absolutely not to anger you for the sake of angering you. It distresses me that you could even consider that as a serious possibility. My motive was exactly what you describe: I had failed to persuade you rationally, so I was trying to persuade you viscerally. I failed spectacularly both times, after which I ran out of ideas and threw in the towel, hoping that the passage of time might repair some of the damage I had done.
@Ron: "I can see no way anyone can reach that conclusion if they understand what black people have to endure that white people don't."
ReplyDeleteA true enough statement. Alas, you never seem to have considered that one interpretation of this true statement might be that I know some things that you don't know. But rather than be humble about your possible ignorance, you proceeded in full confidence that if you couldn't think of anything, if must not be possible. (Hence: arrogance.)
"I can only act on the evidence and the testimony of people who are actually black."
No. There are other possible choices. Introspection does not trump academic psychology. You have in fact accidentally uncovered the conflict between identity politics and actual science. But we're no longer talking about the original topic, because you've long since left rational discourse about racism in America.
"Note that you just contradicted yourself"
Obviously (since I said it myself in the same comment), I'm aware of your intention. Hence the "pretty much" qualifier, which was because you were trying to "piss me off" -- albeit you thought you had a reason to do so, other than the mere sport of it ("for the sake of"). But the first part is actually the important part, hence the "pretty much" response from me.
"It distresses me that you could even consider that as a serious possibility."
Fine. I didn't consider merely "for the sake of pissing me off" as a serious possibility. I'm angry at what you actually did nonetheless.
"I had failed to persuade you rationally, so I was trying to persuade you viscerally."
You should be ashamed of your conscious abandonment of rationality. Not just in that one example, but throughout this discussion. (Hence my litany of quotes from you.) If it had just been this one example, I might have let it go. But after 2, 3, 4 times ... you're no longer engaging in a honest discussion.
How many times have you been mistaken or dishonest with me here? How many times deliberately insulting? How many times did you respond to reason with emotion? Hell, EVEN LUKE can't come up with a plausible generous interpretation of how (some of) your responses are at all justified. And yet, have you once apologized to me? (Besides the self-serving and obviously false "You win. You were right. I was wrong. I'm sorry." That was so obviously not sincere, it just makes the whole thing worse. Now you're even mocking actual apologies.)
But yes, if it makes you feel better: No, I did not actually ever think you were trying to piss me off merely "for the sake of pissing you off". (Perhaps it was just a nice bonus.)
> I'm angry at what you actually did nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteClearly. I regret that. When I said I was sorry, I meant it.
> you never seem to have considered that one interpretation of this true statement might be that I know some things that you don't know
True, because I happen to know that you're white like me, and so I know that you, like me, cannot possibly know what it is like to be black.
But by all means, please be so kind as to enlighten me now: what is it that you know that I don't which justifies your claim?
@Ron: "what is it that you know that I don't which justifies your claim?"
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, you're referring to this claim of mine, way way back near the beginning of this thread? "I support and agree with your effort to fight and shame current racists. My prediction is that, even if you were to succeed, it would have little effect on average US black outcomes." Wow, how great it would have been if a question like this had been your original response, way back then. Instead of the actual response you gave at the time: "Do you realize that that is an incredibly racist statement?"
You seem to be trying again to actually discuss the original topic of racism and the black experience in America. I did try to honestly engage with you on this topic, when I originally commented on both of your posts. It's a subject that I care a lot about as well.
It's a difficult and complex and emotionally fraught subject. Unfortunately, at this point, I'm not sure that I have enough trust left here to discuss this original topic with you any more. Maybe some other time.
@Don:
ReplyDelete> how great it would have been if a question like this had been your original response, way back then
It was:
You: I never said anything about blacks being fundamentally inferior.
Me: Why not? On what rational basis can you possibly ascribe poor black outcomes to poor choices but not to fundamental inferiority? Has someone done a study that somehow teases out these two causal factors? How would you even design such a study? How could you possibly show that the genes that produce black skin don't also produce brains that make poor choices?
Even if the form of my questions made unwarranted assumptions, I don't know how it could be any clearer that I was seriously considering the possibility that you might know something I don't.
> You seem to be trying again to actually discuss the original topic of racism and the black experience in America.
No, I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed. At this point I just want to achieve clarity on one narrow issue: do you in fact claim to know something I don't which justifies your position (to say nothing of your self-righteous indignation at my behavior), and if so, what is it? You've insinuated that you have this secret knowledge, and you've taken me severely to task for not considering this possibility (despite the fact that I actually did consider it), but you have not actually come out and said it. Before I repent for not adequately soliciting your secret knowledge you are going to have to go on the record and specifically claim (if not actually demonstrate) that you do in fact possess it. Otherwise we're done here.
@Ron: "do you in fact claim to know something I don't which justifies your position"
ReplyDeleteIt appears so, yes. At least, you seem to have demonstrated that you can only think along a narrow track, and you seem unable to imagine any other possibilities. I can certainly imagine many more possibilities than you have described (and I even have some real world data in support).
I'm not claiming that I know any great "secret knowledge". Only that you seem to be so blind, that almost any honest person who comes to this topic rationally and objectively, would likely at least explore the same paths that I have explored.
You don't seem to be aware of these other alternative explanations, so I suppose, yes: at this point, my working hypothesis is that I (and many others!) seem to know some things that you don't.
And the trick is not really a big deal. It's just approaching this topic like any other (scientific) topic: what do we know, what evidence do we have, what possible theories could explain the evidence, what are the Bayesian posterior probabilities for the various options, etc. That would quickly lead you to places that you haven't seemed willing to go. Instead, you seem to have fallen into identity politics and moralizing and shaming and virtue signalling. All great stuff, surely -- but not a wise strategy if you have any interest in discovering actual truths about the world.
> You don't seem to be aware of these other alternative explanations, so I suppose, yes: at this point, my working hypothesis is that I (and many others!) seem to know some things that you don't.
ReplyDeleteLike what?
@Ron: "Like what?"
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be trying to bait me into talking about the main topic again. But I've been burned by you before. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Imagine we were trying to solve a math problem, say whether there was some connection between the diameter of a circle and its circumference. And I observe: "It looks to me like the ratio between the two might be fixed; perhaps something between 2 and 4." And you express great interest, and ask if I have any more detail. And I do some more work, and come back again with: "I think the ratio is a constant, a little bit more than 3 --" And you cut me off: "No! Do not ever utter the evil word of 'three'. That word is forbidden, and shameful!"
It's not clear what you want me to do. You have put blinders on to cut off areas of intellectual inquiry, so you have no real hope of finding the actual truth of the universe. You've done it both to yourself, and you also impose these blinders on others in your conversation. I tried to hint at some of these possibilities in the original conversation, and your response was to attempt to "shame" me, for even imagining the possibility at all, and you explicitly didn't even care whether the claims were true or not.
Here's you, Ron: "I also think that statement is racist, and I would stand by that assessment *even if* it were to turn out that it is true."
Why would anyone interested in discovering the scientific truth of the universe, bother to talk to such a person who chooses to react in such a way? You're not a trustworthy person to engage with, on a difficult and complex topic that is so sensitive.
@Ron:
ReplyDelete> Like what?
When a child grows up with alcoholic parents, [s]he learns coping strategies to minimize the pain and suffering. But when [s]he grows up and leaves the home, those coping strategies can easily turn into liabilities. Is that child responsible for those coping strategies?
If this can happen to an individual, can it happen to a community? How about large portions of a race?
With that as background, you could take a look at Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 federal government report, The Negro Family: The Case For National Action. He was a sociologist serving as Assistant Secretary of Labor, under Lyndon B. Johnson. This was one year after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Moynihan was concerned that there were pathologies within black culture, which also needed to be dealt with.
Now, if you say that the child of the alcoholic parent is guilty for the coping strategies which are maladaptive when outside of the family, you're gonna have serious issues with Moynihan's report. But if you think that maybe the child will have to do some work to change his/her habits—that [s]he is responsible for doing that—maybe you'll generate two sharply distinguished understandings of responsibility.
One of the labels that Moynihan had to deal with was "blaming the victim". But is it blaming the victim to note that a child of alcoholic parents has developed some coping mechanisms which are maladaptive of the wider world?
You might also look at Marjorie Valbrun's 2013-06-13 Washington Post article Was the Moynihan Report right? Sobering findings after 1965 study is revisited.
Or can I not say some or all of the above on pain of being a racist? I hope not! And by the way, I'm not saying the only continuing factors are ones which have been internalized. I'm just trying to give an alternative to your own explanation.
@Luke: I really appreciated your alcoholic parent analogy, and especially the distinction between "guilty" vs. "responsible" for change. Very insightful. +1.
ReplyDelete@Luke:
ReplyDelete> is it blaming the victim to note that a child of alcoholic parents has developed some coping mechanisms which are maladaptive of the wider world?
It is if you use the fact that someone's parents were alcoholics as a reason not to hire them for a position where the maladaptive coping mechanisms of the children of alcoholics would hinder their job performance. (And note that such a decision would be perfectly rational.)
Also, in order for this analogy to hold, you would have to look at what caused their parents to become alcoholics in the first place. If you're going to compare slavery and Jim Crow to alcoholism, then many of the usual assumptions about alcoholism (i.e. that someone is free to choose not to drink) fail to hold.
I do agree with your distinction between guilt and responsibility, and have since the very beginning. I am (obviously) not guilty of many of the crimes that have led up to the current mess. I am not entirely innocent either, but that is neither here nor there. Even if I were, I would still feel a responsibility to try to make things right.
@Ron: "It is [blaming the victim] if you use the fact that someone's parents were alcoholics as a reason not to hire them for a position where the maladaptive coping mechanisms of the children of alcoholics would hinder their job performance."
ReplyDeleteAh, so you are explicitly opposed to a meritocratic society. I'm going to have to assume that you're similarly in favor of artificially reducing the number of Asians at Berkeley, even though this will result in a society with demonstrably worse engineers. And more bridges will fall down and kill people. Good to know.
"I would still feel a responsibility to try to make things right."
That's talking about a possible policy response. That's premature. You've skipped so many steps. You don't even know what is actually true about the world yet, because you've pre-judged so many content areas, and refuse to even think about topics that make you uncomfortable. So you actually have no idea about the actual causal connection between social trends. It's irresponsible to try to move all the way to policy action, when you are so ignorant about the basic facts of how the world works. You're a medieval doctor trying to cure disease with bloodletting. I suppose applying leeches makes you feel better personally, but it sure doesn't help the patient.
@Ron:
ReplyDelete> > is it blaming the victim to note that a child of alcoholic parents has developed some coping mechanisms which are maladaptive of the wider world?
> It is if you use the fact that someone's parents were alcoholics as a reason not to hire them for a position where the maladaptive coping mechanisms of the children of alcoholics would hinder their job performance. (And note that such a decision would be perfectly rational.)
This is only rational if you believe you have zero duty to help people overcome deficits and defects in their formation (and vice versa). But in fact, the middle class does plenty of this. By now, we've developed quite an understanding of the kinds of detrimental effects that alcoholism can have on children, and we have them on offer so that said children can better compete in what we hope is a meritocracy. We could do the same for whatever is analogous in "black culture", as it were. Or I should say, blacks will probably need to do most of that work, including the theorizing. I'm exceedingly nervous about being a white savior.
I think you're discovering what it really is like, if one rejects Jesus' inversion of power in Mt 20:20–28. It's not a pretty world. And it's a false world, because theory will simply mismatch what is actually done, at least within the boundaries of class, race, and gender stratification. People are good at taking care of people like them. It's people not like us where we so easily get suspicious and stupid and downright evil.
> Also, in order for this analogy to hold, you would have to look at what caused their parents to become alcoholics in the first place. If you're going to compare slavery and Jim Crow to alcoholism, then many of the usual assumptions about alcoholism (i.e. that someone is free to choose not to drink) fail to hold.
Drinking is not the only coping mechanism; anxiety is another. And believe you me, it's not always possible to simply choose not to be anxious. Personal choice only goes so far from any given state, although sustained choice in a given direction can compound like interest, especially with the right support structures.
I picked alcoholism because it is far simpler than slavery; on average it doesn't shred families like slavery did. (To pick a big aspect of slavery.) I agree with Christopher Lasch when he says "Of all institutions, the family is the most resistant to change." (Haven in a Heartless World) Without the stability that family provides, you can get really screwed up. And yet:
>> One might say, “Williams, one cannot ignore the legacy of slavery and the gross racism and denial of civil rights in yesteryear!” Let’s look at whether black fatherless homes are a result of a “legacy of slavery” and racial discrimination. In the late 1800s, depending on the city, 70% to 80% of black households were two-parent. Dr. Thomas Sowell has argued, “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”
What do you make of that? Is it just flat wrong—is the legacy of slavery simply far more powerful than Sowell (who is black) believes?
@Don:
ReplyDelete> you are explicitly opposed to a meritocratic society
No.
> I'm going to have to assume
No, you are not going to have to assume. You can choose to assume. You've chosen to do a lot of assuming in this discussion. Nearly all of your assumptions have been wrong, and my attempts to correct them have led to the single worst train wreck in the 17-year history of this blog.
If you ever decide to stop assuming and feel like *asking* me if (say) I am opposed to a meritocratic society (I'm not) and asking me to clarify how I reconcile that against the other things I've said, I would be more than happy to try to explain it. But I'm not going to take the initiative. I'm done, not because I want to take my ball and bat and go home, but because, as I said before, I'm just out of ideas. I have failed. I just don't know what else to say.
(Add this on top of everything else that is going on right now -- the fires, covid, Trump, a false fire alarm that went of at 5AM this morning, the third we've had this year, and I am on the hairy edge of totally losing my shit. So *even if* I had some idea of how to proceed from here (and I really don't), it's not at all clear how wise it would be for me to act on it.)
@Luke:
ReplyDelete> This is only rational if you believe you have zero duty...
Yes, of course. The rationality of an action can only ever be assessed relative to a goal or a quality metric. Rationality cannot tell you anything about what goals you should choose to adopt.
> I picked alcoholism because it is far simpler than slavery
Sure, but now you're looking for the car keys under the streetlamp. The complexity of this issue is part and parcel of the problem, so an oversimplified model isn't likely to be helpful.
@Ron:
ReplyDelete> Luke: is it blaming the victim to note that a child of alcoholic parents has developed some coping mechanisms which are maladaptive of the wider world?
> Ron: It is if you use the fact that someone's parents were alcoholics as a reason not to hire them for a position where the maladaptive coping mechanisms of the children of alcoholics would hinder their job performance. (And note that such a decision would be perfectly rational.)
> Luke: This is only rational if you believe you have zero duty to help people overcome deficits and defects in their formation (and vice versa).
> Ron: Yes, of course. The rationality of an action can only ever be assessed relative to a goal or a quality metric. Rationality cannot tell you anything about what goals you should choose to adopt.
In that case, I submit that the racism is in the goal/quality metric, and not in the fact. Now, the Enlightenment had a tendency to presuppose quality metrics into its 'Reason', making it difficult to overtly discuss such things. As a result, people would state facts with implicit references to quality metrics that everyone would know, in that "wink, wink" fashion that society so often operates by. But nevertheless, the true problem lies in the quality metrics, not the facts.
> Don: You don't seem to be aware of these other alternative explanations, so I suppose, yes: at this point, my working hypothesis is that I (and many others!) seem to know some things that you don't.
> Ron: Like what?
> : … The Negro Family: The Case For National Action …
> Ron: Also, in order for this analogy to hold, you would have to look at what caused their parents to become alcoholics in the first place. If you're going to compare slavery and Jim Crow to alcoholism, then many of the usual assumptions about alcoholism (i.e. that someone is free to choose not to drink) fail to hold.
> Luke: I picked alcoholism because it is far simpler than slavery
> Ron: Sure, but now you're looking for the car keys under the streetlamp. The complexity of this issue is part and parcel of the problem, so an oversimplified model isn't likely to be helpful.
My guess is that some of the problems are simpler than my example, some of the problems are sufficiently captured by my example (even if only as F = ma is a limiting case of GR), and some would be distorted by my example. Einstein had a nice dictum: "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." The point of my example is that I can internalize bad behavior for which I am responsible to fix, even if I'm not guilty for it getting there in the first place. This seems to be the case whenever the obstacles to overcome are not significantly larger than the obstacles many other people face in life, and can't get e.g. affirmative action to overcome.
Now, if we can return to your question, "Like what?", I think I've given you a promising answer which can carve off at least some of the problems which blacks face. There's also that whole report by Moynihan that you could look at. Or does this not qualify at all as what you were looking for?
@Luke:
ReplyDelete> does this not qualify at all as what you were looking for?
No [1], that was actually very helpful. Thanks.
---
[1] It is an interesting artifact of English that it is impossible to give a yes-no answer to a yes-no question posed as a negative ("Does this not...?") without being ambiguous.
@Ron, @Don:
ReplyDelete> Don: I never said anything about blacks being fundamentally inferior.
> Ron: Why not? On what rational basis can you possibly ascribe poor black outcomes to poor choices but not to fundamental inferiority? Has someone done a study that somehow teases out these two causal factors? How would you even design such a study? How could you possibly show that the genes that produce black skin don't also produce brains that make poor choices?
/
> Don: I'm going to have to assume
> Ron: No, you are not going to have to assume. You can choose to assume. You've chosen to do a lot of assuming in this discussion. Nearly all of your assumptions have been wrong, and my attempts to correct them have led to the single worst train wreck in the 17-year history of this blog.
As far as I see it, Ron, you [plausibly] made an exceedingly intense accusation against Don when you asked the question, "On what rational basis can you possibly ascribe poor black outcomes to poor choices but not to fundamental inferiority?". It is as if because you cannot see a rational basis, probably there isn't one, and so probably Don is a flaming racist. I can't say that you absolutely necessarily logically entailed that, but I think most English speakers would say you strongly suggested it. To that, I would give your reply: "No, you are not going to have to assume."—even probabilistically.
What you don't seem to have seen, is that my example of alcoholic children provides such a "rational basis". I can make bad choices because of nurture rather than nature. Now, you write that it can be hard to distinguish the two, and in a sense, you're right. But we could look at twin studies, where one twin grows up among a lot of racism and another grows up among much less racism. You could also look at black-on-black racism, where the blacks who have established themselves in society try to distance themselves from incoming, "uncivilized" blacks.
And then there's the nature question from a different angle, as we see with the 2016-11-18 Psychology Today article The Biology of Bigotry: Is prejudice in your genes?. Is that permissible, or would knowing that someone has genes which predispose him/her to prejudice a reason to discriminate against that person? (Yes, I've seen Gattaca.) Or maybe, just like you go to the doctor for genetic diseases, you would need to do something about genetic psychological predispositions. Don't we informally do that all over the place? And yet informal means often end up favoring the already-wealthy, because those are the people who can most afford to counteract their various weaknesses, even turning them into strengths.
Hiding facts because they will allow people to be racist seems to me to be a losing battle. Where competition is fierce, the physical/logical consequences will show up and they will be used as selection criteria. And when rumors get going about things that are informally suspected but prohibited from being published publicly, I think the result will be more harm than good. But perhaps my stance here depends on a different model of human and social nature/current construction than you, Ron.
@Ron: "the single worst train wreck in the 17-year history of this blog ... I'm just out of ideas. ... I just don't know what else to say. ... *even if* I had some idea of how to proceed from here (and I really don't)"
ReplyDeleteAre you asking honestly? Do you really not know? After all I've said, and even all that Luke has said? You really have no idea?
I can try one more time.
There is the subject of racism and the black experience in America. I have some ideas there. I may be wrong, I may be right. It's hard to tell; we've hardly even explored the subject.
There is a second, meta-level, issue of having an honest, respectful discussion, on a difficult topic. On this second level, you have been rude and arrogant (to me, at least), but also apparently -- even now! -- completely unaware and disbelieving. (I can try to speculate why: perhaps you feel on the side of right and justice on the racism topic, and it's just too hard to believe that with such good intentions, you could possibly be the "bad guy" on the meta-level topic.)
Here's what happened -- numerous times -- in this discussion. Topic Y would come up. I would make a claim like "I believe X causes Y". Perhaps I'm right, perhaps I'm wrong. That would typically be determined by data, evidence, reason, rational argument. But instead your response was a thought-stopping, "you should be ashamed for even considering whether X causes Y -- whether or not it is true". That is not data, not evidence, not reason, not rational argument. It is a conversation stopper. You have been rude and arrogant. I deserve an apology from you, from how you've treated me here.
But I don't see any evidence that -- even now! -- you're aware of how rude you've been. I see you being sorry for how unproductive this conversation has been. But no glimmer of understanding about your direct role in causing that lack of productivity. Nothing you said that you take back or see as an error -- aside, perhaps, from its "unanticipated" (by you) effects. You regret the effects. But not your actions themselves.
How do you "proceed from here"? Easy! Have a calm, rational, evidence-based discussion. Make a vow to avoid asserting moral judgments on the other participants. (You haven't earned that right, and you haven't established your moral superiority from which to judge the rest of us.) Perhaps even apologize for having inappropriately introduced moral judgments into the discussion earlier.
Before you jump into morality, or public policy, maybe just start with the much simpler: what is actually true? How does the world actually work? Try to be an objective 3rd-party anthropologist.
I don't expect any of this to happen. I don't think you can see yourself as having made an actual error here (again, aside from the consequences: just the act itself). Despite me trying to explain why you have offended me. And despite Luke trying to talk through multiple examples of your behavior as well! I haven't seen you respond to our complaints about your earlier behavior at all.
So I guess it might first start with you honestly confronting what you did. Forget about me: read Luke's comments. Think about them seriously and deeply. You seem to think of yourself as a "good guy" doing "the right thing". What is your explanation for why Luke can't see it either? He's not invested in this argument. But, on multiple occasions in the comment threads on these two posts, he can't seem to see your behavior the way you seem to view yourself. Don't you find that ... at least a bit puzzling?
@Luke: Let me thank you for trying to take an outsider's look here at the conflict between me and Ron, and express things differently than I have been able to. I agree with most of what you've said, but either way, I appreciate the effort.
ReplyDelete"It is as if because you cannot see a rational basis, probably there isn't one ... What you don't seem to have seen, is that my example of alcoholic children provides such a "rational basis"."
Yes, exactly. It's a great example.
I'm glad I can be of some help. I feel like I've just helped gang up on Ron, which wasn't my intent. I just thought some precision comments might help move the conversation past an impasse. These are hard issues and in my internet experience, this rises at most to "medium" in terms of flared tempers and raw emotions. I'm somewhat alarmed at what I see as a general cultural inability to carefully tease apart what is racism and what is not racism. I'd like to think I have some clue sticks on this, which combined with both of yours …
ReplyDelete@Don:
ReplyDelete> Are you asking honestly?
I'm not *asking* at all. I'm *telling* you. I am out of ideas. Note the absence of question marks.
One of the reasons I am out of ideas is that the gulf between what I am saying and the lack of understanding indicated in your responses is so vast that I have no idea how to bridge it. If I write a statement and you interpret it as a question (and not just a question, but a question whose "honesty" you feel the need to publicly doubt) well, I just don't know how to get past that. And while I appreciate the fact that you are taking the initiative to make suggestions, the fact that you think this could be effective is actually just a further indication of how badly you have misunderstood the situation. If we are ever going to get past this, one of the things that needs to happen is for you to let go of the idea that the solution is going to involve you whitesplaining to me all the things I got wrong.
If this were an isolated incident that would be one thing, but it's not. There are so many example of this that I don't even have the energy to *list* them, let alone deconstruct them. I will say this, though, because I really feel the need to set the record straight on this one point:
> Name-calling to get an emotional reaction (thinly excused by you as "only a hypothetical"): "you are mother fucking racist scum".
That was not "thinly disguised." That was in point of actual fact a hypothetical intended to make you think about what it might be like to walk in another person's shoes. It backfired rather spectacularly. Apparently I did not know you as well as I thought I did. I'm truly sorry about that.
@Ron: Two white people discussing whether you were being "intellectually honest" in this debate is not what the term "whitesplaining" means.
ReplyDeleteIronically, your accusation of "whitesplaining" is yet another example of my primary complaint: that you respond to a disagreement not with evidence or reason, but instead with shaming and moral attacks. That behavior of yours is totally uncalled for and inappropriate. But I can't seem to get you to even address it, much less justify (or apologize) for it.
It's close to the only thing I care about here, and I've mentioned it numerous times, and you seem to just ignore it every time.
"a hypothetical intended to make you think about what it might be like to walk in another person's shoes"
Yes, of course I understood that. It relied on your assumption that the only possible way I could have the opinions I had, was if I just was so ignorant as to not understand what it is like to live life as a minority. So you wanted me to experience the negative emotions and perhaps feel empathy for "the other". You thought that experience might educate me, that I might learn something through that experience that I had not previously encountered in my (apparently) sheltered existence.
Your attempt was insulting. This was not something missing from my education, and I learned nothing from your hypothetical. Not only that, the whole thing was actually irrelevant to what we were talking about. The fact that you thought you would teach me something about this subject that you knew but believed that I didn't, was arrogant. And your methodology was uncomfortable, inappropriate, and insulting. And, on top of all of that, irrelevant: you used negative strong emotion to avoid addressing the intellectual content of what I had said.
"It backfired rather spectacularly."
Agreed. And deservedly so.
I ask you once again: stop applying moral judgments and shame in this discussion. You don't have the standing to be in that position. You are not the morally superior being who gets to criticize the rest of us. It is your own behavior that is causing the anger and resentment.
> Yes, of course I understood that.
ReplyDeleteNo, you manifestly did not, and still don't. There is an ENORMOUS difference between "Name-calling to get an emotional reaction" (what you accused me of) and what I actually did: asking someone to consider how they would feel *if* someone did something to provoke an emotional reaction in them in a situation where they could not respond with righteous anger without risking their livelihood or even their life, and how having to bottle up all that anger might impact their ability to make rational decisions. If you understood that, we would not be having this conversation.
> This was not something missing from my education
Perhaps, but it is something that is missing from your life experience. Because you're white. And so am I, and so is Luke, and so was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
> I ask you once again: stop applying moral judgments and shame in this discussion.
No, I will not. Because what is happening here is shameful. We're a bunch of powerful rich white guys arguing about social justice and not a single one of us has thought to invite the views of an actual black person. The only person who has cited a source *at all* is Luke, and his source was a 65-year-old report written by a guy named Moynahan. The tone-deafness of this whole exchange is staggering. We should all be hanging our heads in shame. Not a single one of us is even within sight of the moral high ground here, certainly not me. (And the fact that you think I was claiming the moral high ground is just another indication of how badly YOU have misjudged things.)
I am beyond disgusted with this whole situation. I'm disgusted with you, and I'm disgusted with Luke, and I'm way beyond disgusted with myself for screwing this up so badly and allowing the situation to spin so wildly out of control. (And don't even get me started on Publius!)
I am going to make one more attempt to crawl away from this debacle while I still have a sliver of sanity left. Maybe some day I'll have the presence of mind to deal with this again. But not today.
@Ron: "No, you manifestly did not, and still don't."
ReplyDeleteYes, I do (and did -- even before you came up with your hypothetical example).
"There is an ENORMOUS difference between..."
Yes, I know.
"what you accused me of"
Yes, I know that I overreacted to this part a little bit, and pushed my description of what you had done somewhat past true accuracy. I should apologize for that, and perhaps would have ... if this whole discussion were more of an honest conversation. But yeah, I'll admit that you've made me not super motivated to bend over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt.
"If you understood that, we would not be having this conversation."
False. I do understand that, and we're still having this conversation. Yet more evidence that you continue to misunderstand me. You still don't seem to be grappling with what you've actually done, and why you have caused offense.
"No, I will not. Because what is happening here is shameful."
So you just won't let it go. You persist in thinking it's ok to lecture and berate the rest of us, in judgment from your perch of moral superiority. You can't be humble enough to consider that you might be wrong about this. What a shame.
"We're a bunch of powerful rich white guys arguing about social justice and not a single one of us has thought to invite the views of an actual black person."
You're essentially arguing identity politics. I explicitly, consciously, thoughtfully, reject this framing. Identity politics is unscientific and wrong. I reject it. This is exactly your approach of moral criticism, that you are doing once again. I do not accept your criticism at face value (in the absence of evidence, or reason). No. You are wrong.
"Not a single one of us is even within sight of the moral high ground here"
That's your opinion. Not mine. I don't agree with you.
"And the fact that you think I was claiming the moral high ground is just another indication of how badly YOU have misjudged things."
WTF? You're doing it right here! In this very comment. You are morally judging my behavior (and finding it wanting!). That is "claiming the moral high ground". You continue, in every comment, to try to shame me. You think you're in a position to morally judge my behavior. You aren't.
But you seem to have no awareness at all, that you shouldn't be judging others. Doesn't really even occur to you.
> You persist in thinking it's ok to lecture and berate the rest of us, in judgment from your perch of moral superiority.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not. I do not know how I could possibly have made this any clearer:
"Not a single one of us is even within sight of the moral high ground here, certainly not me."
> You're essentially arguing identity politics.
I am making the objective observation that we are white and therefore we cannot possibly know what it is like to be black. That is simply a fact, no different from observing that we are both male and so cannot possibly know what it is like to be a woman. You can call that "identity politics" if you like, but that just looks to me like an attempt to distract from (or dismiss) this fact by attaching a loaded term to it.
> You are morally judging my behavior (and finding it wanting!). That is "claiming the moral high ground".
No, it isn't. Because I HAVE ENGAGED IN THE EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR.
@Ron:
ReplyDelete> Don: I support and agree with your effort to fight and shame current racists. My prediction is that, even if you were to succeed, it would have little effect on average US black outcomes.
> Ron: Do you realize that that is an incredibly racist statement?
⋮
> Don: Surely when you accused me ("Do you realize that that is an incredibly racist statement?"), you intended it as an insult, something for me to be ashamed about.
> Ron: An insult, no. Something to be ashamed of, yes.
⋮
> Don: I ask you once again: stop applying moral judgments and shame in this discussion.
> Ron: No, I will not. Because what is happening here is shameful. We're a bunch of powerful rich white guys arguing about social justice and not a single one of us has thought to invite the views of an actual black person. The only person who has cited a source *at all* is Luke, and his source was a 65-year-old report written by a guy named Moynahan. The tone-deafness of this whole exchange is staggering. We should all be hanging our heads in shame. Not a single one of us is even within sight of the moral high ground here, certainly not me. (And the fact that you think I was claiming the moral high ground is just another indication of how badly YOU have misjudged things.)
This is the first time I've seen you include yourself in present shame, Ron. Past shame yes—that's the OP. But not present shame. Until this comment here, you seem to have been in the position of judge & jury. For example: "Something to be ashamed of, yes." That statement seemed to be based at least in part on this [deconstructed] assumption, with Don saying of my deconstruction, "Yes, exactly. It's a great example." It is an open question of how much "detrimental momentum" has been internalized within black culture, which results in "bad choices because of nurture rather than nature". Shaming any and all discussion of this is only destructive to the long-term interests of blacks. Sometimes you have to grind your face against empirical reality, no matter how hard it hurts.
As to your claim of "tone-deafness", I will note that the author of the WaPo article on the Moynihan report I cited (Was the Moynihan Report right? Sobering findings after 1965 study is revisited), Marjorie Valbrun, is a black woman.
On the more general topic of getting someone who's black to comment here, I've been warned against having a "token black person" come in and talk. What I've been told is actually to go get myself educated on the matter, which I've been doing by reading books such as The Color of Compromise: The Truth about the American Church’s Complicity in Racism and [on the list] Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America. We could build up a bibliography, then find some blacks who are willing to engage.
@Ron:
ReplyDelete> Don: I ask you once again: stop applying moral judgments and shame in this discussion.
> Ron: No, I will not. Because what is happening here is shameful.
> Don: So you just won't let it go. You persist in thinking it's ok to lecture and berate the rest of us, in judgment from your perch of moral superiority. You can't be humble enough to consider that you might be wrong about this.
> Ron: No, I do not. I do not know how I could possibly have made this any clearer:
>
> "Not a single one of us is even within sight of the moral high ground here, certainly not me."
Ron, you sure seem like you expect your moral judgments to stand in this conversation, and everyone else's moral judgments to fall if they are not consistent with your own. You can argue with whether that pattern constitutes "perch of moral superiority" or "the moral high ground", but that seems like semantics. You exude extremely high confidence in the correctness of your position, even if that position includes things like "We should all be hanging our heads in shame." You are confident that we should all be doing this. There is no doubt in your mind, as far as I can tell. Maybe you don't intend to project this, but it's the sense I've long got from you, and it seems like Don is sensing it from you right now as well. (BTW, I think all three of us can be quite good at exuding such confidence, whether on moral or non-moral issues.)
> I am making the objective observation that we are white and therefore we cannot possibly know what it is like to be black. That is simply a fact, no different from observing that we are both male and so cannot possibly know what it is like to be a woman.
Has anyone denied this, explicitly or implicitly? I think it's appropriate to throw one of your lines back at you: "what is it that you know that I don't which justifies your claim?" That is, what's an example of "what it is like to be black", which you've learned from someone who is black, which is relevant to this conversation? You seem quite confident that there's something important there, so how about some concrete specifics? Was your "Now imagine that" scenario from the other thread drawn from actual experiences you've read about happening in the US close to 2020, older experiences, or synthesized by you or someone else who is white?
Instead of inviting a "token black person" (see my previous comment) to come here, why not go out there and get some concrete examples of "what it is like to be black", and see how they integrate with, challenge, or contradict the various ideas that you, Don, and I have advanced in these discussions? Or maybe we could go through something MLK Jr. wrote.
P.S. I actually included statements from two other black people: Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell, in this comment—but I forgot to source the article: Walter E. Williams: How important is today's racial discrimination?.
@Ron: "I do not know how I could possibly have made this any clearer: Not a single one of us is even within sight of the moral high ground here, certainly not me."
ReplyDeleteYou apparently can't see that your own comments are self-contradictory.
You're allowed to say "certainly not me". That is self-criticism.
You are not allowed to say "Not a single one of us is even within sight of the moral high ground here." That is moral condemnation of others, and the exact mistake you have been making since the start of this discussion.
"I am making the objective observation that we are white and therefore we cannot possibly know what it is like to be black. That is simply a fact"
Merely observing fact is never a problem. (In fact, this is my point, against you.) That that's not at all what you are "merely" doing. The "fact" you observed was your justification for your earlier claim of "what is happening here is shameful". This was your rationalization for why you feel you are allowed to judge us.
Once again, it is your moral condemnation of others that is how you continue to cause problems. You put yourself on a pedestal, and sit in judgment of others. You need to stop doing that. Just stop.
"No, it isn't. Because I HAVE ENGAGED IN THE EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR."
Nope, not good enough. Merely saying "I do it too!" doesn't give you license to judge me. You are still claiming the moral high ground, by believing you deserve to be in a place where you get to morally judge me. Even if you claim that you also suffer from the same fault. That doesn't excuse your behavior.
I'm not (morally) condemning you, but you continue to condemn me. Stop it. You're being rude. I do not accept your judgment.
Try Google Scholar
ReplyDelete@Ron:
>(And don't even get me started on Publius!)
I am the only one who has posted links to peer-reviewed literature. which is one of your standards for quality scientific inquiry:
An examination of the relationship between general life stress, racism-related stress, and psychological health among black men.
Racism: Perceptions of Distress Among African Americans
I have also posted links to documentaries on how school choice lifts blacks up:
Watch the documentaries, The Lottery and Waiting for "Superman". Also the TED talk, Our failing schools. Enough is enough! | Geoffrey Canada.
A foundation for future success is a good education. School choice lets parents get their kids out of bad public schools and into higher performing charter schools. Charter schools, in fact, have succeeded in closing the racial gap in education.
I believe I also referenced the Moynihan report, and it's evaluation many years later, in a post -- just as Luke did.
I also referenced Thomas Sowell, as Luke did:
Here is the correct explanation, with correct attribution of causes, fully reasoned out: Intellectuals and Race. For those who prefer video, there is Interview on Intellectuals and Race.
If your method is "evidence, experiment, and reason" -- then you should apply that to this problem. Try researching peer-reviewed papers, in quality journals, that scientifically address the problems of racism. Discuss those. Take the emotion out and discuss the data. Look at prior examples of black success -- such as the href="https://t.ly/LYxc"Dunbar School, where black school children excelled at the highest academic levels. Or how charter schools have closed the racial gap in school performance between blacks and whites.
Try applying the scientific method, instead of your emotions and intuition, which are fallible and not reproducible.
Above all, be open to the idea that you could be wrong.
My words have obviously been completely ineffective here, with Ron. Perhaps essays by others will be more useful.
ReplyDeleteRon, perhaps you could try James Lindsay's article. Do you support "Critical Race Theory"? (I don't.) What is your response to his hypothetical "tailor shop" example?
Or perhaps you can find some insight in G. Thomas Burgess's comparison of Structuralists vs. Culturalists. Would you describe yourself as an Anti-Racist Structuralist? (I'm a Non-Racist Culturalist.)
Just trying to suggest that there might be more diverse moral frameworks available for understanding the world, than the one you seem to have used in this discussion.
(Hat tip for links, to RA)
Wow, that G. Thomas Burgess Quillette article Anti-Racist Structuralists and Non-Racist Culturalists is quite germane to our discussion. Among other things, he documents a transition in Ta-Nehisi Coates' thinking from something like alcoholic children & Moynihan's focus on family → "it's all because of what whites are doing constantly".
ReplyDeleteOne way to perhaps push this forward is to examine successes and failures of the "make different choices" model. For example, what is it that makes it hard for blacks to maintain stable, two-parent homes for children? I am told that there are welfare policies which result in sharp cuts right when a single mother gets married, such that it is financially far better to remain single. To the extent this is true, that's an example of structural racism which needs to be dealt with. But have black communities innovated on ways to do purely social marriages which don't touch the law, so that there is no sharp drop-off with welfare benefits? I don't know. What I do know is that for a long time, it was highly unfashionable in many quadrants to talk about the importance of a stable, two-parent home. This needs to be repented of and by and large, it's not Republicans who are guilty of this. (They could be guilty of hypocrisy on this point, however.)
If you want some examples of structural racism, see Michael Shellenberger's 2018-05-31 Forbes article Number One In Poverty, California Isn't Our Most Progressive State -- It's Our Most Racist One. Among other things, CA manages to use environmental law to de facto discriminate against blacks. And there's also the following: "Where 56 percent of Californians could afford a middle-class home in 2012, in the third quarter of 2017, just 28 percent could." So this stuff definitely happens.
Just to offer something on the other side, here's an hour-long video interview of Ibram Kendi, author of "How To Be An Antiracist".
ReplyDeleteHe's wrong about almost everything (morality, history, economics). But I wouldn't be surprised if Ron buys into his narrative. He's a thoughtful, engaging, charismatic speaker, with a compelling story. (But that doesn't make it true!)
(Oh, and of course in the same vein I need to mention the book White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo. She also has an hour-long video.)
Ah, I watched that video a while ago. Kudos for linking to the video with a transcript. This part is eminently sensible:
ReplyDelete>> And so to be anti-racist is to believe that there's nothing wrong or inferior about black people or any other racial group. (~4:25)
This [partially] matches Ron's choice of Wikipedia's definition:
>> Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. (WP: Racism)
But anyone who takes Genesis 1:26–27 seriously can agree with that. The very next thing Kendi says is problematic:
>> There's nothing dangerous about black people or any other racial group. And so when we see these racial disparities all around us, we see them as abnormal, and then we start to figure out, OK, what policies are behind so many black people being killed by police? (~4:25)
The fact of the matter is that blacks are more likely to victimize:
>> Based on victims’ perceptions of the offenders, the offender-to-population ratio shows that the percentage of violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was 1.8 times the percentage of black persons (12%) in the population. In contrast, the percentage of violent incidents involving white (50%) or Hispanic (14%) offenders was about four-fifths (0.8 times) the percentage of whites (62%) or Hispanics (17%) in the population, and the percentage involving Asian offenders (2.5%) was about two-fifths (0.4 times) the percentage of Asians in the population (6%). The percentage of violent incidents involving offenders of other races (Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races) was 3.8 times the percentage of those races in the population. (Bureau of Justice: Criminal Victimization, 2018, 13)
If you run the numbers in Table 14 of the same page, you find that in 2018 there were 60k white-on-black incidents, vs. 550k black-on-white incidents. Now, there are plenty of explanations for why this has everything to do with structure [maybe: and culture] and not genes. And I'll bet you that violence is mostly localized and much if not all can be explained via economic factors. But we need to acknowledge that risk-aversion treats even low probabilities as something to deal with; you do not want your daughter to be a victim of violent crime. You will play it safe to avoid this and that means [statistically] you'll listen to old wives' tales and rumors. We need an honest discussion about the actual data and I fear that earlier Ta-Nehisi Coates had a key part of the answer which later Ta-Nehisi Coates has [apparently] abandoned. Maybe not—maybe once the multivariate causal analysis is done, there will be nothing left to assign to anything like "culture". But if we don't acknowledge the facts explicitly (and thus challenge the relevant people to work hard to change things), the facts will still play a role in society, implicitly.
———
That all being said, I would like to see the likes of Ta-Nehisi Coates and Kendi talk about why they think people like Thomas Sowell (who insists on a strong, stable, two-parent home) have it wrong/incomplete. The true test of an idea is not whether it sounds nice, but what happens when it is put into practice. This could take seriously stuff like Ian Millhiser's 2015-08-13 Think Progress American Schools Are More Segregated Now Than They Were In 1968, And The Supreme Court Doesn’t Care.