A couple of months ago, I posted a clip of Ibram X Kendi giving an embarrassingly circular definition of racism on Twitter. It’s unclear whether the nervous laughter that followed Kendi’s “definition” was based on the fact that he’d used the word he was supposed to be defining three times in quick succession, or whether his audience simply thought he was joking.
As much as I complain about assumptions based upon a monolithic view of groups, I have to constantly work at not doing it myself. It's so easy to do that.
As for short definitions of racism, "low expectations of someone because of their race."
Ironically It is very common in SJWs. "Black people need a white person to fix their issues (me, the superior ally)" and/or "white people are inherently racists." I consider it a foundational plank though it is often thought of as soft racism.
“To put them into an arbitrary box, and treat them like everybody else who ever fit in it. But it shouldn’t be lost on any of us that this is also true of racism.”
One of the things I so enjoy about you Steve is the unflinching honesty and fresh take you challenge yourself to make in these interactions, while holding a principled, consistent stance on what you feel to be true. It’s a mark of intellectual character that - clearly - draws people to you.
Your final words I re-cite here make so much sense. What you accurately call out as putting people in an arbitrary box seems, to me, the very initial stages of beginning to ‘other’ another person. And we all know where that leads. Well, those of us who disdain the silly illogic of a Kendi know where it leads.
It does indeed lead to racism.
I really enjoyed this exchange. Thank you for sharing.
I actually quite like the definiton of racism from Racecraft, "racism is the practice of a double standard based on ancestry" The authors do this, in order to not reify the concept of race, it avoids both tautology (as we see in Kendi's definiton) as well as not relying on race. They posit that racism makes race, and this is "racecraft" and not the other way around
Ah well... Hope You read the one on "Occam's Razor" first. Granted, intuitions sometimes leave a lot to be desired.
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDGING CHARACTER.
You see, I thought this would go without saying. But perhaps not. It comes in handy when asking these kinds of questions:
Why are We here living at this time? What is the PURPOSE of life?
How do we judge right from wrong?
Are scientists (SOME) right to believe that EVERY question can be solved by pursuing scientific objective truths?
IS there even such-a thing as semi-objective Truth.
IS it a waste of time to pursue such semi-objective Truths?
What is racism?
Do I have racial biases?
Am *I* a racist?
How DO You analyze things that can't be QUANTITATIVELY MEASURED?
What's the easiest (therefore best) Way to live day-to-day?
From the least, to the most, these are some-a the burning questions revolving around the subconscious, if not the conscious, mind.
Sure, You try to find the answers Yourself. In fact, that's the ONLY Way, technically, that You CAN answer them. But most people are smart enough to look to others for hints.
Being amongst the things than canNOT be measured quantitatively, how is one to separate the wheat from the chaff. And that is done by judging the character of the person "speaking." Which itself, cannot be measured. The over-reliance these days on quantitative thinking is, In My View, one-a the main reasons people struggle overly in trying to answer these kinds of questions. I think the overall malaise in the Western world, people endlessly seeking...
...Well, In My Humble Opinion, For What It's Worth, Your Mileage May Vary, I Could Be Wrong...
I think it's because full-well 50% of the important question will NEVER be resolvable by thinking quantitatively.
TY (thank You) anyone taking the time to read. More still for Contemplating on the ideas. TYTY, either Way.
Well, "Occam's Razor" is a fairly well-known concept amongst scientists, and others. I was informed of it in my youth, but looked it up on Wikipedia a few months ago. I didn't find the discussion there all that good. A simple way of expressing it is "use the SIMPLEST idea that fits the bill. The more complicated an idea, the less the likelihood that it has a very general applicability."
So I would propose a shorter sentence, that covers a huge number of cases. To paraphrase the "I Have a Dream:
Racism: Instead-a judging a person by their character, judging by color of skin.
It has some advantages.
It's not my own ego-centric idea, but the one by the Master on Racism, MLK.
It leaves color of skin outta the equation altogether, as it should be.
It stresses the importance of character.
Now some say a color-blind America isn't POSSIBLE. In fact, some say it's racist itself. That's true to the extent that it's not possible to do PERFECTLY. But only that far.
To be opposed to a color-blind America is, firstly, only useful for the purpose of gaining approval for a lesser version of anti-racism. But, secondly and most importantly, it's CONTRADICTING the idea that we shouldn't take the color of a person's skin into account. It's saying color of skin, not only SHOULD be taken into account, but is of PRIME IMPORTANCE in viewing a person.
And they saying wanting a color-blind America would be RACIST?
Before You deny any-a the above, I'm am in no way, shape or form suggesting color of skin should NEVER be taken into account. When You're looking at things in a general Way. And on a personal level? I'm saying color of skin should be taken into account in a SMALL measure, and culture of person should be taken in LARGE measure.
Off-topic: Writing things strictly based on intuitions is in no wise gonna be illogical. Above statements PERFECTLY logical? Mathematically doubtful.
As much as I complain about assumptions based upon a monolithic view of groups, I have to constantly work at not doing it myself. It's so easy to do that.
As for short definitions of racism, "low expectations of someone because of their race."
Ironically It is very common in SJWs. "Black people need a white person to fix their issues (me, the superior ally)" and/or "white people are inherently racists." I consider it a foundational plank though it is often thought of as soft racism.
“To put them into an arbitrary box, and treat them like everybody else who ever fit in it. But it shouldn’t be lost on any of us that this is also true of racism.”
One of the things I so enjoy about you Steve is the unflinching honesty and fresh take you challenge yourself to make in these interactions, while holding a principled, consistent stance on what you feel to be true. It’s a mark of intellectual character that - clearly - draws people to you.
Your final words I re-cite here make so much sense. What you accurately call out as putting people in an arbitrary box seems, to me, the very initial stages of beginning to ‘other’ another person. And we all know where that leads. Well, those of us who disdain the silly illogic of a Kendi know where it leads.
It does indeed lead to racism.
I really enjoyed this exchange. Thank you for sharing.
I actually quite like the definiton of racism from Racecraft, "racism is the practice of a double standard based on ancestry" The authors do this, in order to not reify the concept of race, it avoids both tautology (as we see in Kendi's definiton) as well as not relying on race. They posit that racism makes race, and this is "racecraft" and not the other way around
Ah well... Hope You read the one on "Occam's Razor" first. Granted, intuitions sometimes leave a lot to be desired.
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDGING CHARACTER.
You see, I thought this would go without saying. But perhaps not. It comes in handy when asking these kinds of questions:
Why are We here living at this time? What is the PURPOSE of life?
How do we judge right from wrong?
Are scientists (SOME) right to believe that EVERY question can be solved by pursuing scientific objective truths?
IS there even such-a thing as semi-objective Truth.
IS it a waste of time to pursue such semi-objective Truths?
What is racism?
Do I have racial biases?
Am *I* a racist?
How DO You analyze things that can't be QUANTITATIVELY MEASURED?
What's the easiest (therefore best) Way to live day-to-day?
From the least, to the most, these are some-a the burning questions revolving around the subconscious, if not the conscious, mind.
Sure, You try to find the answers Yourself. In fact, that's the ONLY Way, technically, that You CAN answer them. But most people are smart enough to look to others for hints.
Being amongst the things than canNOT be measured quantitatively, how is one to separate the wheat from the chaff. And that is done by judging the character of the person "speaking." Which itself, cannot be measured. The over-reliance these days on quantitative thinking is, In My View, one-a the main reasons people struggle overly in trying to answer these kinds of questions. I think the overall malaise in the Western world, people endlessly seeking...
...Well, In My Humble Opinion, For What It's Worth, Your Mileage May Vary, I Could Be Wrong...
I think it's because full-well 50% of the important question will NEVER be resolvable by thinking quantitatively.
TY (thank You) anyone taking the time to read. More still for Contemplating on the ideas. TYTY, either Way.
Well, "Occam's Razor" is a fairly well-known concept amongst scientists, and others. I was informed of it in my youth, but looked it up on Wikipedia a few months ago. I didn't find the discussion there all that good. A simple way of expressing it is "use the SIMPLEST idea that fits the bill. The more complicated an idea, the less the likelihood that it has a very general applicability."
So I would propose a shorter sentence, that covers a huge number of cases. To paraphrase the "I Have a Dream:
Racism: Instead-a judging a person by their character, judging by color of skin.
It has some advantages.
It's not my own ego-centric idea, but the one by the Master on Racism, MLK.
It leaves color of skin outta the equation altogether, as it should be.
It stresses the importance of character.
Now some say a color-blind America isn't POSSIBLE. In fact, some say it's racist itself. That's true to the extent that it's not possible to do PERFECTLY. But only that far.
To be opposed to a color-blind America is, firstly, only useful for the purpose of gaining approval for a lesser version of anti-racism. But, secondly and most importantly, it's CONTRADICTING the idea that we shouldn't take the color of a person's skin into account. It's saying color of skin, not only SHOULD be taken into account, but is of PRIME IMPORTANCE in viewing a person.
And they saying wanting a color-blind America would be RACIST?
Before You deny any-a the above, I'm am in no way, shape or form suggesting color of skin should NEVER be taken into account. When You're looking at things in a general Way. And on a personal level? I'm saying color of skin should be taken into account in a SMALL measure, and culture of person should be taken in LARGE measure.
Off-topic: Writing things strictly based on intuitions is in no wise gonna be illogical. Above statements PERFECTLY logical? Mathematically doubtful.