[KODeKarnage]

> I think most people agree racism exists and is bad.

Sure, by the definition of racism that you and I would use. But not by the one that's been weaponised in these purity spirals. By their definition, as explained by the academic interviewed in the podcast, it is literally impossible for someone raised in modern society NOT to be racist. Taking offense at being called a racist is more evidence of racism. Trying to explain how you aren't racist is more evidence of racism.

It is like Original sin, but without any path to redemption.

[jayd16]

Its really not rocket science. If you say hurtful things when you don't mean to, that's one thing. Denying the other party's feelings are valid and continuing to say hurtful things for really no reason other than to be stubborn makes you a jerk.

Redemption is to just try not to be a jerk.

[ThrowawayR2]

> "If you say hurtful things when you don't mean to, that's one thing. Denying the other party's feelings are valid and continuing to say hurtful things for really no reason other than to be stubborn makes you a jerk."

I note that this says nothing about the original speaker's feelings and opinions. If the other party denies the validity of the speaker's feelings and opinions, are they not also jerks?

[jayd16]

It applies universally, yes.

[KODeKarnage]

> Redemption is to just try not to be a jerk.

Motte and Bailey.

Telling people you aren't a racist and didn't mean the thing they consider to be racist in a racist way is in no way denying the other party's feelings are valid.

[jayd16]

It is because that is not relevant. If you step on a foot, you apologize. You do not start talking about how you aren't a foot-stepper.

[edjrage]

It's more like I stepped on your foot's shadow and you call me a foot-stepper.

[henrikschroder]

This article linked to another one on exactly that theme:

https://unherd.com/2020/01/modern-politics-is-christianity-w...

It's also very good and worth reading.

[tomlockwood]

> not by the one that's been weaponised

Ok, but which authority gets to objectively identify when accusations of racism have been weaponised? How do we distinguish between "weaponised" accusations of racism, and legitimate ones?

[chippy]

This was brought up right at the end in the BBC podcast. The academic said something like "you don't get to distinguish. That accusations were made means that something was done to warrant some reaction". I feel the academic agreed that it could be weaponised but saw that its not possible to distinguish and that there would always be some justification.

The presenter suggested that the solution would be to not believe in the ideology. "The best way to get rid of witchfinders is to get rid of the belief in witches"

[probably_wrong]

> Ok, but which authority gets to objectively identify when accusations of racism have been weaponised?

No one. If there was such an authority, you wouldn't have a "purity spiral" to begin with.

[tomlockwood]

So who gets to identify objectively when a purity spiral exists? Almost all people in a "purity spiral" have the impression they're applying the appropriate amount of "purity".

[circlefavshape]

Are you trying to assert that there is no such thing as a purity spiral because there is no objective definition of one, and no authority that can definitively identify one?

[tomlockwood]

No. I'm trying to decide whether I should trust the people that are in a "purity spiral" who say they're being reasonable, or the people gesticulating at the knitting community and saying there's a purity spiral there because they said so.

Who is more credible? How are we sure which one is?

[circlefavshape]

If it was possible to objectively decide who is more credible then the world would be a much simpler place. You'll have to decide for yourself who to trust

[spangry]

There are a number of things you could do. You could look for corroborating accounts. For example (note these are a three part series written by the same person):

https://quillette.com/2019/02/17/a-witch-hunt-on-instagram/

https://quillette.com/2019/06/07/instagrams-diversity-wars-r...

https://quillette.com/2019/07/28/knittings-infinity-war-part...

You could gather and directly examine evidence yourself:

https://fringeassociation.com/2019/01/07/2019-my-year-of-col...

https://fringeassociation.com/2019/01/07/2019-my-year-of-col...

Ultimately I guess you have to make your own judgement of what kind of ideas and behaviour you deem 'reasonable'. The difficulty, I suppose, is if you yourself are caught up in one of these purity spiralling communities. It's hard to maintain objectivity in such a situation. Delusional people don't know that they're delusional. People caught up in a cult don't think they're in a cult.

I've seen people only come to understand how insane things are when the mob finally turns on them, but by then it's too late to get out unscathed.

[comex]

It's impossible for someone raised in modern society to not be influenced by its thousands of cultural associations and tropes. That's not much of a leap; being exposed to something (anything) and it having absolutely zero effect on you is not how humans work. It's not a bad thing, since most tropes are positive or neutral. But if some of those tropes are harmful, you can refute them and act counter to them, but that doesn't mean they won't still have some influence on your thought processes.

I'm not religious, but from my understanding, it is kind of like original sin. Humans are flawed; you can't fix that but you can minimize it and you can be forgiven for it. Same goes for the specific flaw that the brain is really prone to stereotypes, as a sort of cognitive shortcut.

Edit: By the way, contrary to a claim in a link in one of my sibling replies, this is not a 'sin' specific to white people. People who are themselves members of minority races are influenced by the same tropes as everyone else.

[jariel]

Just the opposite: it's perfectly normal for people to classify things, people, ideas, to have all kinds of such thoughts - it's normative and healthy.

It is not sinful or flawed in any way.

That this happens among 'all kinds of people' is not hugely relevant.

That people would try to classify normal behavior as examples of racism is extremist.

In some situations, said subconscious thoughts might alter decision making in small ways is something we should be aware of, but even then it's not 'sinful' and the mere suggestion is at the root of the problem.

We're not talking about actual racists here, we're talking about ladies knitting groups and the minor triflings that develop into purity wars.

[comex]

> Just the opposite: it's perfectly normal for people to classify things, people, ideas, to have all kinds of such thoughts - it's normative and healthy.

Indeed, which is why I said:

> It's not a bad thing, since most tropes are positive or neutral.

However, in the specific case of tropes that are racist or have racist components, being influenced by them certainly is bad to a varying extent.

> In some situations, said subconscious thoughts might alter decision making in small ways is something we should be aware of, but even then it's not 'sinful' and the mere suggestion is at the root of the problem.

I think we’re in violent agreement. The important thing is to be aware of unconscious bias, and try to counteract it where possible.

> We're not talking about actual racists here, we're talking about ladies knitting groups and the minor triflings that develop into purity wars.

I’m referring to actual racist tropes. I cannot speak for the knitting group example: the article certainly makes it seem like the accusations of racism are crying wolf, and it is probably accurate to a significant extent, but the article also obviously has an anti-‘political-correctness’ agenda, so it may be presenting the facts in a biased manner.

(And, unsurprisingly, the website it’s published on is anti-progressive more broadly. From a skim of the current front page, in terms of concrete social issues, I see one article saying that “the inconvenient truth is that transwomen are male”, while another recounts media bias” “when I worked for a pro-life organisation”. More abstractly, I count at least 5 articles complaining about progressives and political correctness.)

[7952]

A lot of the time you just get into an argument over semantics. Does someones behaviour meet the definition of the word "racism"? People just have more or less extreme defintions. Really it shouldn't matter.

I tend to agree that prejudice is part of the human condition. The response to that should be humility, but also an attempt to counteract that prejudice in ourselves. In an ideal world we would be able to call out racism without it being a taboo. It shouldn't neccessarily mean that the person is bad, but that they may be wrong.