this just seems like another instance of the rhetorical
appalachianization of american racism that serves simultaneously to
allow the northern liberal to convince themselves that as long as
they’re not drawling slurs at people they’re not really racist and to
occidentalize all conservative americans as being part of a mysterious
other clinging on to storied cultural tradition and that if we just
understood them we’d all be able to get along
Fixed version:
>I have exhausted my ability to understand why, deep into the 21st century, I’m still hearing otherwise rational-minded people use the same arguments that Pierre-Paul Broca used to discredit the non-white races more than 150 years ago: Their cranial capacities couldn’t possibly be that large. But worse in many ways are the rational people who will tell you point blank that the world today — the world they actually live in and understand with their own predictive algorithms — can’t possibly be as unfair as black people say it is because of FBI crime statistics.
>Maybe this is what happens when a person’s only “news” source is the alternative universe of Jayman's blog. Or maybe they’re all just racists.
> Of course, you could argue that whether or not someone obtains a criminal record is itself racially biased
It uncontroversially is, when you have black people getting arrested more often and getting longer sentences than white people for the same crime.
**Stop-and-frisk in New York City**
The stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, in New York City, is a New York City Police Department practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and at times searching civilians on the street for weapons and other contraband. This is what is known in other places in the United States as the Terry stop. The rules for stop, question, and frisk are found in the state's criminal procedure law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio.12,404 stops were made in 2016.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Yep. I feel these articles always assume “East Coast liberals” are all from large cities and therefore have never encountered these people in real life.
This is a pretty standard “don’t us the word racist” fair, but I
figured it’s worth sneering at something slightly outside our
wheelhouse.
There are a few currents running through this opinion piece, but the
one that particularly nags at me is the assumption (as our own
/u/noactuallyitspoptart has highlighted in the past) that somehow giving
voice to the fact that some people are racist or are “acting racist” is
itself wrong. But I think that this piece makes an interesting
juxtaposition of two “takes” on contemporary racism: 1. That if people
don’t believe themselves to be racist, they will under no circumstances
recognize this truth, and also 2. “everyone is a little bit racist.”
Let’s just let that sink in for a moment.
The idea here is that we should not make life uncomfortable for
racists, says our intrepid white NYT columnist. (But I don’t find that
idea comfortable!) As if, all human response to discomfort is defensive,
animal reaction—you know, instead of the more common feeling of guilt,
and subsequent psychological challenges that accompany the need for
change.
tbh, I think the word 'racist' needs to be split up into several terms based on intensity. I'm sure some already exist, but they aren't nearly as prevalent in the discourse.
Previous threads have noted that white Amercians accept that racism is bad, but they have defined racism as 'literally the KKK and nothing else'. Scooter and a great number of his followers are an illustration of this.
> I think the word 'racist' needs to be split up into several terms based on intensity.
Why? Wherefor? To what ends? Upon whose orders?
If we're just putting out our feelings on this, I think that people ought to learn to dwell on their discomfort with racism a little while before they start grasping for language to disassociate themselves from 'literally the KKK and nothing else.' Because if there's anything we've learned from the past two years, there's no end to the language of "racist by degrees": alt-right, alt-light, ethnonationalist, classical liberal, neoreactionary, republican, etc... and how could any of these thing recognized as degrees of racism be disarticulated from the very thing to which they are of degrees? Let's make up or adopt new words, sure, but by their very definition they are forms of racism, and that's apparently "literally the KKK and nothing else." (Btw, it only ever seems to me to be those people who are interested in covering for racism that insist this to be the only recognizable racism---not that I'm saying the you're such a cover-maker, but it is an enduring character of this idea.)
I think you making the mistake of taking these people's racism as an accidental feature of their thinking, and not a core truth in which they organize their lives. And until people can learn to sit with that core truth---instead of playing it of as some sort of inevitable human universal---there is no escaping this fresh hell.
It's more a rhetorical tool than anything. I'm aware that the term 'racism' has academic definitions and nuances, but that's a different setting than the howling snake-pit of internet discussion. It's a major slip-up to use the same word for someone who commits a faux pas out of ignorance, and someone who genuinely believes that other races should be subjugated by force of law.
A recurring thread with the left is people approaching day-to-day discussions with the same conventions as an academic paper, and acting confused when the other party doesn't understand / reacts badly.
I'm also aware that most of the alt-right isn't looking to have its mind changed. But debate isn't about changing the opposite side; it's about changing the undecideds. And judging by the popularity of Youtube chuddery like Sargon, Joe Rogan, and Jordan Peterson's lectures, the left is failing badly at drawing normal people away from the nu-right. Especially among young men.
Thirdly, I'm not blaming this solely for the rise of the alt-right. I'm well aware of the dominant reasons, such as the collapse of neoliberalism, settler-colonial mentalities, etc. I even acknowledge that the left has an inherent challenge with the demographic mentioned above, since cultural misogyny has already primed them towards an unthinking fascism or at least conservatism. The left shouldn't sacrifice its own principles to draw these people in, I absolutely agree.
But like I said, the left has a real problem with targeting rhetoric to audiences. And it has a responsibility to funnel the resentment with modernity and capitalism into non-shitty ends.
>I think you making the mistake of taking these people's racism as an accidental feature of their thinking, and not a core truth in which they organize their lives. And until people can learn to sit with that core truth---instead of playing it of as some sort of inevitable human universal---there is no escaping this fresh hell.
For the Pepes, sure. But the vast majority of people aren't maliciously ignorant. It is true that a determined minority can overwhelm an apathetic majority, but that makes it more important to counter-mobilise members of the majority. Again, I don't give a fuck about the Pepes. They would be easily overwhelmed if currently-apathetic people were appealed to on their own terms.
>(Btw, it only ever seems to me to be those people who are interested in covering for racism that insist this to be the only recognizable racism---not that I'm saying the you're such a cover-maker, but it is an enduring character of this idea.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis
It sounds like you've piled a lot of work upon your own plate. I look forward to seeing your revolutionary work on "rhetorical tools to change the minds of the undecided so they aren't racists." Keep me in the loop.
I agree that white people are too sensitive, and that they *shouldn't* be. But they still vote.
I'm seeing a lot of 'shoulds' and 'oughts', but not a lot of ways of dealing with them. Sneerclub should be well aware of the distinction.
Is that what were talking about? [Is that what I said?](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/936ul5/how_to_talk_to_a_racist_or_white_people_in_the/e3bhogx/) I was under the impression the brilliant idea here was to create polite euphemisms instead.
this just seems like another instance of the rhetorical appalachianization of american racism that serves simultaneously to allow the northern liberal to convince themselves that as long as they’re not drawling slurs at people they’re not really racist and to occidentalize all conservative americans as being part of a mysterious other clinging on to storied cultural tradition and that if we just understood them we’d all be able to get along
crushingly banal and honestly depressing to read
This is a pretty standard “don’t us the word racist” fair, but I figured it’s worth sneering at something slightly outside our wheelhouse.
There are a few currents running through this opinion piece, but the one that particularly nags at me is the assumption (as our own /u/noactuallyitspoptart has highlighted in the past) that somehow giving voice to the fact that some people are racist or are “acting racist” is itself wrong. But I think that this piece makes an interesting juxtaposition of two “takes” on contemporary racism: 1. That if people don’t believe themselves to be racist, they will under no circumstances recognize this truth, and also 2. “everyone is a little bit racist.” Let’s just let that sink in for a moment.
The idea here is that we should not make life uncomfortable for racists, says our intrepid white NYT columnist. (But I don’t find that idea comfortable!) As if, all human response to discomfort is defensive, animal reaction—you know, instead of the more common feeling of guilt, and subsequent psychological challenges that accompany the need for change.