[wwweston]

Does anyone who swears that MSG is bad for health do so because they personally hold anti-chinese racist views? Probably not.

Is it possible that:

* the MSG mythology in some Western nation was proposed by those with some degree of bias against foreign things or chinese cuisine or people specifically

* it caught on and was repeated by people who were enthusiastic about it because of some degree of that bias

* MSG was attended to in some food but not in others because of some degree of that bias

* as this reached critical mass in western culture the idea became common wisdom even among those with no particular bias and exported anywhere that western culture has reach

People sometimes refer to this kind of construction as "systemic" racism. The majority of people subscribing to the myth might be entirely innocent of any kind of identifiable racial stereotyping or discrimination and yet inputs from people who are might be enough to tip the system that way.

Maybe there's other equally credible explanations, but this one is hardly incredible.

[reitzensteinm]

It totally is systemic racism.

But I wish there was another word for it, or that racism were not used interchangeably with systemic racism.

There's a hell of a difference between "you're racist" and "you're spreading misinformation that only exists because your grandparents were racist".

The latter will get a reaction from the vast majority of people like "oh shit, I had no idea, that's awful". The former will cause anger, frustration, defensiveness and denial.

If the idea is to get everyone on board with the idea that the deck is still stacked against minorities even in the absence of conscious contemporary racism (which I believe to be true), telling people they're racist is probably the worst way to go about that.

[rayiner]

> If the idea is to get everyone on board with the idea that the deck is still stacked against minorities even in the absence of conscious contemporary racism (which I believe to be true)

Chinese Americans have higher incomes than white people on average. In terms of income mobility: Vietnamese Americans who came here in the 1970s as refugees went from being among the poorest groups in the country, to parity with white Americans today. Asian Americans are richer, have higher income mobility, and live longer than white Americans. Once you adjust for age and citizenship status, they’re also pretty close to evenly represented among billionaires and Fortune 500 board members.

That is not to say they don’t face unpleasant racism, xenophobia, and stereotypes. But saying “the deck is stacked against them” is a much stronger statement. It implies a structural racism that impairs prosperity. While some minority groups do face such structural racism, specifically, Black and indigenous people, others do not: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353.

[aksss]

Thurston County in WA, which is the seat of the state capital, has decided Asian people are not “people of color” anymore because they’re doing too well.

https://reason.com/2020/11/16/equity-report-north-thurston-a...

[rayiner]

Oh it’s worse than that: https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-school-be-antiracist-a-new-...

Under a policy proposal by the Evanston, IL superintendent, white and Asian students would be held behind doing remote learning while other students were prioritized for return to in-class education. When people opposed the policy, they were called racists. The condemnation was worse for Asians who objected to their kids being given a worse educational experience on account of their race—they were called, in essence, traitors to non-white solidarity.

Critical theory has some really f—ked up premises about Asians. The classical liberal, even left-liberal view, doesn’t require an explanation for Asian economic success. Asians don’t face the legacy of say Jim Crow, and the American system is otherwise basically fair, so Asians have been able to prosper even if roadblocks have hampered other groups.

Under critical theory, however, the country and its institutions are considered systematically racist and white supremacist. That creates a dilemma with respect to Asians. How can they have prospered in a system of white supremacy? The solution is to suppose that whites “allowed Asians to succeed” to “serve as a wedge with other non-whites.” Asians are thus stripped of agency—their success isn’t their own, but instead the byproduct of a ploy by whites.

Therefore, when an Asian complains when his child must continue distance learning while other students return to in-person education, they’re not merely being self-centered. They’re not merely failing to acknowledge that other kids suffer from disadvantages that their own children don’t. That would be the typical liberal view. In the critical theory view, they are collaborators. They owe their status due to white supremacy and they’re complicit in white supremacy unless they act in solidarity with other non-whites. Even if that means suffering disadvantageous treatment in schools, etc.

[thaumasiotes]

> The classical liberal, even left-liberal view, doesn’t require an explanation for Asian economic success. Asians don’t face the legacy of say Jim Crow, and the American system is otherwise basically fair, so Asians have been able to prosper even if roadblocks have hampered other groups.

I guess, but this viewpoint fails pretty badly at explaining why Asians prosper so much more than whites do.

> Asians are thus stripped of agency—their success isn’t their own, but instead the byproduct of a ploy by whites.

To be fair, critical theory says exactly the same thing about blacks -- their lack of success isn't their own, it's the product of a ploy by whites. I don't see why we'd expect a different analysis for Asians.

[geofft]

Sure, it's an uncomfortable thing to say, but I hope we're not dismissing hypotheses because of how they make us feel.

More to the point - I agree with the comment above about how the term "racist" (and "white supremacist") makes people have fairly strong emotional reactions, and we'd probably have better discussions if we somehow avoided those words. But I hope we can move past them and analyze what this theory is saying to see if it's true. As a wise man once said: "If a statement is false, that's the worst thing you can say about it. You don't need to say that it's heretical. And if it isn't false, it shouldn't be suppressed."

So let me make an analogy. You and I both pay taxes to the US government (or so I assume), which on occasion does some pretty unethical things (cf. "We tortured some folks.") We also both benefit from living in a country that's so powerful that it can get away with unethical things; such a country also gives us all the opportunities in the world. We could object and refuse to be "collaborators," in one of several ways, whether by just arranging our work situation so we don't pay, or moving to another country, or whatever. But we don't - so we are choosing to be collaborators!

But no one really faults us for not doing so - while we all understand that if it weren't for the collective tax payments of all US taxpayers, the US military couldn't commit any war crimes, we are happy to say that the individual culpability of any tax payer is negligible.

And nobody really says that we're stripped of agency and our success isn't our own simply because we chose to e successful professionals in the US, even though if you dropped us into the median country, we'd certainly be less successful.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that we don't care about not doing war crimes, or about the good of other countries! We, collectively, the taxpayers / voters, ought to hold our country and especially its military to a high moral standard, and ought to admit wrongdoing (and make restitution, where possible). If we fail to do that, it's a shame on our country. And we the taxpayers / voters need to ensure that the US is not what it is at the expense of other countries, and even above that, there is bipartisan support for foreign aid.

If we're comfortable with all of the above, and we don't think that anyone is making "f--ked up" claims about individual American taxpayers when they accuse the country of having committed war crimes or anyone is impugning the agency of individual American professionals when we call America the land of opportunity, I don't think we should shy away from analyses of the "model minority" that would say that collectively, across society, improvements could be made.

(And, as a child of Indian immigrants to a deeply segregated town in the South, I have seen first-hand that the rational thing for non-white non-black immigrants who care about their success and their children's success is to assimilate into the dominant culture. They have the choice, and it's an easy choice to make. The term "complicit in white supremacy" also provokes an emotional response, but it would be pretty hard to argue that such rational-acting parents who love their children are not, at least a little bit, comfortable with using the reality of race in America to improve their own standing by placing themselves in proximity to whiteness!)

[rayiner]

> but it would be pretty hard to argue that such rational-acting parents who love their children are not, at least a little bit, comfortable with using the reality of race in America to improve their own standing by placing themselves in proximity to whiteness!

The phrase “using the reality of race in America to improve their own standing” really gets to the heart of the issue. Consistent with critical theory, it implies that Asians benefit from the existence of white oppression of other non-whites. Critical theory posits that Asians “improve their own standing” by helping perpetuate white supremacy.

But consider the counter-factual. Say the US was just white and Asian people. Would Asians be as successful in that case? Under the traditional liberal view, the answer is yes. The existence or non-existence of oppressed groups doesn’t help or hurt Asians. Under the critical theory view, the answer is no. In a system of white supremacy, if Asians aren’t helping oppress other non-whites, there is no reason to “allow” them to succeed.

Empirically, we know the critical theory view is wrong. Countries like Canada and Australia don’t have the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and aren’t segregated. But Asians enjoy high economic mobility in those countries as well.

The basic error in your reasoning is assuming that the existence of segregation changes the incentives or the outcomes for Asians. To the contrary, it’s “rational” for Asian immigrants to assimilate into the dominant white culture whether or not segregation exists. Indeed, it’s rational for pretty much any immigrant in any country to assimilate into the dominant culture, regardless of whether there is also another, oppressed culture in the country.

[ineedasername]

It's very strange to qualify the "of color" designation on the basis of socioeconomic parity.

Are multi generational pockets of poverty-stricken caucasians granted "of color" status by Thurston County?

[ineedasername]

It could impair prosperity for Asians. Comparing raw average income alone isn't sufficient to settle the question. Consider the counterfactual possibility that Asians might be even more prosperous with even higher income if not for structural racism. I fact, it seems that Asians do make as much as 8% less than others in comparable jobs [0] though that difference may disappear somewhat for Asians born in the US, indicating a more complex dynamic than discrimination on appearance alone.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_pay_gap_in_the_United_S...

[rayiner]

> Asians still make 8% less than whites in comparable jobs except for Asians who have been in the United States for one and a half generations, whom have reached full parity in income.

This sounds like the difference is due to things like immigration status and citizenship, not race. Most Asians are immigrants, and many aren’t citizens. That limits opportunities quite a bit even within the realm of “comparable” jobs.

[ineedasername]

Yes, that is possible. One way that might help determine things would be to look at the income of first-generation immigrants from European countries to see if there is a similar dynamic (but not English-speaking countries, to keep that variable constant). It bring my example only to show that merely point to income isn't sufficient to show the existence of structural racism, that it's more complex than that. (and harder to measure)

[lifeformed]

Economic prosperity isn't the only metric that matters. Racism isn't just about money - the deck can also be stacked in social, cultural, and political ways.

[rubicon33]

It's called being biased, misinformed, or at worst stereotyping, and it used to be accepted that everyone does it and it's not the end of the world that your aunt from Wisconson thinks MSG gives her hives.

Nowadays that aunt is racist, her whole family is racist, and it's the reason why everyone else can't get ahead in life.

[neilparikh]

> it used to be accepted that everyone does it and it's not the end of the world that your aunt from Wisconson thinks MSG gives her hives

I think you're taking the accusation of racism as much stronger than it actually is. No one has claimed that this is uncommon, or "the end of the world", or "her whole family is racist", or "it's the reason everyone else can't get ahead in life". They've simply said it's racist, and that claim seems uncontroversial given the definitions.

For example, if it turned out someone gave 1 cents more on average to white vs non-white beggars (due to unconscious racial biases), that would clearly be racist, but it also wouldn't be the end of the world, and I don't think person would be a particularly bad person.

If something fits the definition of racism, it doesn't become not racism just because someone feels attacked by calling it racism.

Now, in common parlance, racism is a loaded word, so I don't think it's advisable to call someone racist over these issues, and I wouldn't do so. But that doesn't mean we should censor ourselves when discussing these topics in the abstract. Otherwise, we're basically practicing political correctness.

[rubicon33]

Totally agree. The problem is that the word "racism" has meant a lot of things over the decades continues to be used to describe many gradations of behavior and outlook. It's used to describe brutally beating a black man to death in the street, it's meant denying housing opportunity, and it also describes moving to the other side of the sidewalk when a black man is on your side, or picking a white candidate over a black candidate in a job interview.

The spectrum that the word "racist" covers is simply too large.

That's why I've pointed out that it used to just be called "stereotyping" but there's been a concerted effort on the part of those pushing identity politics, to make this about power. It's to the point where they've redefined "racism" to mean "at a minimum, stereotyping another person from a position of power or authority".

The implications of that new definition are that many people who were previously guilty of stereotyping, are now racist. In fact, basically any white person who stereotypes, because they generally have privileges' and power in society, are now "racist".

I don't agree with the redefinition, and I think it's an example of a pendulum that has swung too far.

[ineedasername]

I might agree that the pendulum has swung too far, but we also now have a better understanding of how bias and stereotyping can nonetheless be damaging. though yes, racism is much too loaded of a term to be thrown around the way it currently is. If you admit to no gradations, well that's when you get cancel culture, when a joke in poor taste that might reveal some bias can result in the same consequences as blatant hate speech.

[rubicon33]

Totally. Some might even say it was a necessary evil, that the pendulum swung far, for progress to be made.

I'm glad that society as a whole recognizes systemic "racism" and how unfair the world is for many. I'd love nothing more than for us as a world community to move toward a reality that is a true meritocracy and equal opportunity isn't just a buzz word. Who can honestly say they enjoy unfair advantage? No one.

That said, not everything is a product of your race/gender. We have a long way to go and I hope we don't eat each other before we get there. The cancel culture and reverse racism that I'm seeing is an unfortunate side effect of "progress".

[AnthonyMouse]

> Some might even say it was a necessary evil, that the pendulum swung far, for progress to be made.

The trouble is, because of the way pendulums work, the harder you push it in one direction, the harder it swings back the other way.

The level of polarization in the US right now is dangerous and cancel culture is playing with fire in a room full of gunpowder.

Cf. alien machinery: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/

[ineedasername]

Re pendulums: Yes, my own personal reading of the past 30 years of increasing partisanship is exactly that: each time it swings a little further. (Absent a short reprieve after 9/11. I thinks it's telling that a few swings of the pendulum more and the current disaster has not brought us together in any sort of way)

[JKCalhoun]

Maybe. But I have observed that so many cameras in people's pockets the past decade have shown us no evidence of UFOs nor of Bigfoot — but holy hell Black men do get killed when arrested disproportionately in the U.S..

[AnthonyMouse]

> but holy hell Black men do get killed when arrested disproportionately in the U.S..

This is selection bias. The ratio of police shootings to arrests is not higher for black people. Police shootings of black persons are national news, police shootings of white persons are not.

[ineedasername]

The ratio of police shootings to arrests is not higher for black people

Assuming that's true, all it says is that, once you're getting arrested, you're about even on the probability of being shot. What it doesn't address is the increased probability of Black me to be arrested to begin with.

[rayiner]

Not quite: https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-ana...

> This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.

The systemic racism happens one step removed from that. Police are far more likely to engage into interactions with Black men, as a result of more aggressively policing Black neighborhoods, bias in engaging with someone in different circumstances, etc.

[AnthonyMouse]

> But I wish there was another word for it, or that racism were not used interchangeably with systemic racism.

Especially where in this case it's much more like systemic culturalism.

Suppose the same thing had happened, but rather than the initial dispute being between the vendors of British food and the vendors of Chinese food, it was between the vendors of British food and the vendors of Italian food. So you would have a lot of people believing that they're allergic to the gluten in pasta, when almost none of them really are, and also ignoring that plenty of British food contains gluten as well.

It would be pretty hard to argue that as racism unless you're using a definition of racism not characteristically used in America, but you can still imagine the same thing happening in the same way. So what does that tell you?

[JohnBooty]

    But I wish there was another word for it, 
    or that racism were not used interchangeably 
    with systemic racism.

I understand both sides of the argument.

Many people learned an overly simplistic definition of "racism" at some point. Essentially, "overt racism" or "active racism" -- using slurs, joining the KKK, refusing to hire people of a certain race, etc.

Anything less overt than this is not "racism" to them. Having generally steered clear of such actions in their lives, they are dismayed to consider the possibility that there are a lot of other institutions and individual actions that are racist.

We could invent a new term for "systemic racism." But, ultimately, it's still racism. To the people experiencing it, it has the same net result as other forms of racism. If a white person in a predominantly white society doesn't hire you because you're non-white, there's no material difference to you whether that person did it for overt, conscious reasons or otherwise. That is why is it is useful to think of systemic racism as racism, rather than inventing a new word for it.

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Think of the people in your life who are vehemently opposed to the use of the term "racism" to include systemic racism. Suppose we actually did invent a new term for systemic racism so that they could feel more comfortable. How do we think these people would respond?

I think a significant number of them would complain about the new term just as much. I can hear them now in my mind. "First we have to worry about being 'racist', now we have to worry about $SOME_NEW_TERM!?!? What will 'they' think of next?!?"

Because it's not really about words for them. It's about a refusal to examine their own actions.

[rayiner]

The distinction isn’t between overt and passive. The traditional definition of “racism” still includes “implicit bias.”

The recent distinction is between “prejudice” and “effect on racial equity.” Ibram Kendi distills the view quite clearly. He explains that the lower tax rate for capital gains is “racist.” He doesn’t say it’s motivated by racial prejudice (either overt or implicit), or deny that it’s nearly universal in the developed world, including in non-white countries. What he means is that the tax preference has the effect of delivering more benefits to white people because white people are more likely to own capital assets.

In the traditional view, by contrast, racism is a mental state—it’s an attitude that’s held by people, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Studies show that these attitudes, what’s now called “prejudice,” is probably overstated and isn’t the dominant driver of racial differences: https://www.chronicle.com/article/can-we-really-measure-impl....

The recent approach has been to reuse “racism” to refer to systems that create or perpetuate racial disparities whether or not they’re motivated by what’s now called prejudice.

An example of this usage is saying that “standardized testing is racist.” To people familiar with the traditional definition, this implies that test makers have racial prejudice and, consciously or unconsciously, designed tests to hinder minorities. Under the new definition, this just means that the practice of using standardized tests perpetuates racial disparities because it hurts students that have suffered disadvantages.

Of course we had words for this before. I studied what would now be called “environmental racism” in law school. We would say “minority communities suffer disproportionately negative effects from the siting of coal plants.” We don’t need to come up with a new term for this, as you speculate. That’s a concept I could easily explain to my Trump-voting in laws and they’d get it. But when you call that “racism” that implies (not only to my in laws, but to my Biden voting non-white dad) that people involved in the siting decisions were motivated by racial prejudice. They’d say, “no, they’re just putting the coal plant where the land is cheapest.” Under the traditional view, a decision like that based on purely objective, relevant, non-race factors can’t be “racist” because that concept refers to a state of mind (whether overt or implicit).

Now, there is a logic to academics and activists using the term “racism” for that. As you observe, the effect on the groups themselves is similar. Most important, by framing “racism” in terms of effects rather than mental state, it forces a consideration of racial equity impacts on otherwise race-neutral policies.

[JohnBooty]

That is one of the best and most succinct descriptions I've read. Bravo.

I mean that sincerely. I'm afraid it may read as sarcasm, but it is not.

    Of course we had words for this before. I studied 
    what would now be called “environmental racism” 
    in law school. We would say “minority communities 
    suffer disproportionately negative effects from 
    the siting of coal plants.”

“Minority communities suffer disproportionately negative effects from the siting of coal plants” is a nice description of that specific thing. What about more general construction and zoning choices that aren't about coal plants? What about systemic practices in general that have disproportionately negative effects on minorities? I don't feel we had an overarching term for those phenomena, besides "rascism." Language, but not a term.

    The recent approach has been to reuse “racism” to refer to 
    systems that create or perpetuate racial disparities whether 
    or not they’re motivated by what’s now called prejudice.

The approach has changed, but how much?

Whether the year is 1860 or 1960 or 2020, surely even the most fundamental understanding of racism has always required an understanding of both intent and effect.

When I was in school in the 1990s, we learned about the many "kindly" slaveowners who viewed themselves as benevolent caretakers of their slaves, whom they viewed as simple savages that would not prosper on their own. We learned how race-based humor could have innocent intent but negative consequences. And so on. The frequent dissonance between intent and effect was in my opinion vastly underemphasized, but this was not a new line of thought even 30 years ago.

    [The coal plant thing] is a concept I could easily explain 
    to my Trump-voting  in laws and they’d get it. But when you 
    call that “racism” that implies (not only to my in laws, but 
    to my Biden voting  non-white dad) that people involved in the 
    siting decisions were motivated by racial prejudice. They’d 
    say, “no, they’re just putting the coal plant where the land 
    is cheapest.”

The practical argument for calling this something other than "racism" is, essentially, that we need to make things more palatable for folks in order to help them understand the effects of their actions.

I would certainly agree that labeling such acts as racism precludes many people from understanding these concepts. We have been taught that racism is one of the greatest of transgressions and nobody wants to think of themselves as racist. I don't even think many members of white nationalist groups even consider themselves "racist."

[1MachineElf]

It's not systemic racism, it's the headache I get from excess glutamate. My family is Chinese. Don't @ me.

[avs733]

When I tell people “you’re on fire” They do just fine differentiating when I’m complementing their golf game and when I’m literally telling them they are aflame.

On the surface your suggestion of a different word seems reasonable but it’s not.

People are perfectly capable of choosing to seek understanding of nuanced use of words and phrases. The fact that they disengage rather than doing so is not the responsibility of the speaker.

[an_opabinia]

MSG aversion is relatively new. People’s attitudes about it change over the scale of decades. This is pretty consistent with most other food additives, like aspartame, certain preservatives and certain food colorings. While I agree there exists racism against Asian Americans in many places, it would behoove people who feel passionate about the elimination of prejudice around the world to fight for things not because of how they interface with ignorant people (ie because all ignorant people seem to like good Chinese food, like all other human beings) but because the goal is worthy. And personally, “greater acceptance of MSG as a food additive in Chinese food as opposed to Doritos” is better achieved by better marketing, clearly.

[aksss]

Yes, there’s a strong, recurring aversion to food additives that doesn’t require racism as an explanation. I think the MSG/Chinese connection was because the restaurants would add it to their dishes, which was at the time kind a unique thing - even though many processed foods contain MSG, having it added to your prepared food would be as strange as them adding Yellow #5 to your dish, and the reaction no different. There’s a quality of integrity to prepared dishes that most all but the modernist restaurants trade upon. Chemical additives, in the days Red Dye #2 scares and the rest hardly need a racist explanation to understand the aversion.

[Ensorceled]

> MSG aversion is relatively new.

I encountered the "MSG is Harmful" trope in university in the 1980's ... it's literally been around for generations now.

[shoyer]

Not being a “conscious racist” doesn’t make you any less racist. Racism isn’t about intentions, it’s about consequences. It’s a convenient slight of to pretend otherwise.

[zdragnar]

"Racism isn’t about intentions"

Appropriating words to steal the emotional strength of them for your own, novel concept is silly. Not everyone will buy the new definition, and you'll end up with two groups yelling at each other, about different things, with no common understanding.

If you cannot read "racism isn't about intentions" and not laugh, you are doing yourself a disservice.

[sellyme]

> Maybe there's other equally credible explanations

While I have very little doubt that xenophobia was a large factor in the hysteria over MSG in the United States, there's definitely no need for a "Maybe" here. Just look at the "pink goop" claims about McNuggets that range from two decades out of date to completely falsified - people are willing to believe all kinds of nonsense that fits their preconceived notions.

[KMag]

See also the number of people who believe they have a gluten sensitivity or peanut allergy, or who are worried about the pH of their food, etc., etc. A large segment of the US population has been conditioned to be paranoid about food. A rise in self-diagnosis combined with the placebo effect when testing a self-diagnosis certainly hasn't helped matters.

[Frost1x]

I think we need to create new language for dealing with these sorts of cases to differentiate what's being said.

When you make a claim that a statement someone makes displays racism, that usually implies indirectly that the speaker is actively/knowingly/intentionally being racist. Being a racist voluntarily implies a lot of negative baggage. It often implies not only ignorance but more consequently, unjustified: bigotry, hatred, willingness to commit violent acts against another on this bias, and so forth.

When you promote an idea that happens to prop up or create institutional racism, the vast majority share only one feature: ignorance. We're all ignorant of somethings to different degrees so I wouldn't put a scarlet letter like "racist" on someone due to ignorance. Unfortunately, this also sets the stage for sociopaths to push academic dishonesty, to essentially truly be racist in the traditional sense and promote/support features of institutional racism while feigning ignorance, so you'll get some false negatives, but I think it seems reasonable.

I'm not exactly sure what the term, phrase, or linguistics should be but I think something new and distinct from "racist" and "racism" needs to be developed, otherwise the terms become wild cards for any and every type of bias that may arise, even if the bias has no real intent of being racist, directly or indirectly. The more you throw "racism" and "racist" around outside the well established context, the less power it carries in language. Right now it carries a lot of weight still and I don't want to see that language lose its power.

[eli]

You don’t have to knowingly possess a racist motive to be racist.

[Frost1x]

I think you do, otherwise this opens the door to anyone and everyone being a "racist" by some secondary, tertiary, or nth order effect. Essentially everyone would have some degree associated with them of how racist they are.

I propose the following question: are people who eat at Chik-fil-A anti-LGBT (specifically gay) rights because they financially support a business through continued purchases that support anti-LGBTQ activities? Probably not (some are, a lot of people... just like their chicken sandwiches). I'm LGBTQ and I occasionally eat one of their chicken sandwiches. Customers may be indirectly supporting systemic opposition of LGBTQ rights, but I think most average people aren't looking at these n-th degree removed effects, nor could anyone be asked to all the time (I think consumers are being a bit too negligent on this front but that's another story).

From a few studies I've read, it's actually harmful to give small sums of money to homeless panhandlers because it perpetuates their situation where higher volumes of money and support services are needed to actually help them. Does that mean people who donate money to homeless people are trying to keep them homeless or cause harm, if that's exactly what handing a panhandler a $20 bill does? Probably not.

We don't have words for these types of biases (systemic or not), but if we did, I don't think it's reasonable to claim anyone who has any n-th order contribution that sways a bias one way or another happens to be anti-whatever to the degree racists are against the basically fictional concept of "race." Every action you take likely helps someone and hurts someone else and the same could be said about inaction.

Motive and intent are quite important IMHO. Both are incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to prove undeniably but the advantage of many racists is that they're actually proud to be racist and tell you their intent.

[mlyle]

> > You don’t have to knowingly possess a racist motive to be racist.

> I think you do, otherwise this opens the door to anyone and everyone being a "racist" by some secondary, tertiary, or nth order effect.

Surely there's something in-between. Say, perhaps, black people make you uncomfortable, such that you're inclined against hiring them and you preferentially hire whites instead. Then, you wouldn't knowingly possess a racist motive but would be definitely acting racist and perpetuating racism.

Everyone has, from their own point of view, good motives and intentions.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Surely there's something in-between. Say, perhaps, black people make you uncomfortable, such that you're inclined against hiring them and you preferentially hire whites instead. Then, you wouldn't knowingly possess a racist motive but would be definitely acting racist and perpetuating racism.

That seems pretty clearly to be a racist motive. "Black people make you uncomfortable" is literally traditional racism, and action taken based on that motive is racist. Doing something like that without thinking through your intentions too hard doesn't make the act unintentional, because the intent is there whether you consciously evaluate it or not, and it doesn't change the motive. That person wants to be racist, and then directly is.

Someone who buys a chicken sandwich only because they want a chicken sandwich has no such motive or intent.

[mlyle]

> "Black people make you uncomfortable" is literally traditional racism, and action taken based on that motive is racist.

Good, you caught what I was saying.

> Doing something like that without thinking through your intentions too hard doesn't make the act unintentional, because the intent is there whether you consciously evaluate it or not, and it doesn't change the motive.

This seems to require a tortured interpretation of "intentional". Especially as it can be subtle and difficult to tease out the reasons we do things and make snap judgments. When your mind tells you "he just didn't seem like 'an engineer'" or "I don't think he was a culture-fit" or "I got a bad vibe about how he'd treat the rental property" --- we don't necessarily see the chain to [because he's black and not able in this instant to look 3x more professional than would be required of an equivalent white candidate for a positive impression]. There's no intention there, even if the outcome is racist. And in this scenario, it's not impossible for the black person to get hired, but the bar is unconsciously higher. That's one reason why this is all so insidious and so hard.

> Someone who buys a chicken sandwich only because they want a chicken sandwich has no such motive or intent.

Someone might have a hell of a lot more idea why they want a chicken sandwich than why they are making subtly biased decisions against disadvantaged people.

[Frost1x]

I don't think anyone would disagree that what you're highlighting are systemic problems that need to be addressed (well, except racists of course).

The point I was making is that labeling a racist, IMO, should require a conscious action linked to a bias along racial groupings, just like sexism and ageism do as well because it implies so many very negative characteristics that should only be linked to someone making a conscious decision that they hate some race, sex, age, or whatever. I guess I'm arguing how we should go about addressing the underlying problem and I don't agree that classifying someone racist and crucifying them, in the systemic context, is the way to go about making positive change.

I don't think labeling people purely ignorant of these side effects in a directly negative and confrontational way is productive at all, it might instead insight resentment and further entrench these stereotypes.

When you observe an example that was stated above where a hiring person said they "don't look like an engineer" or something to that effect, you may instead ask them to clarify what they mean--force them (politely) to ponder what are those attributes that make someone look like an engineer? What is the stereotyped biased picture they hold in their mind.

Chances are that person just picked up or borrowed a pattern they saw and have nothing consciously against black people or some other race. By pushing someone to consciously identify and quantify those characteristics you bring their biases to light and hopefully a connection quickly clicks and that person now realizes "holy crap, was I stereotyping against that person and not trying to look at it objectively? Did I just unknowingly discriminate against that person based on purely on race?" I've seen this happen many time when people are made aware of their biases and I've seen people genuinely try to change as a result.

Some people may require a bit more directed questioning to make these observations and surfacing the stereotype alone won't get you all the way there.

This is how you stamp out these biases: you make people consciously aware of their biases. Once they're aware of the bias, it becomes a conscious act of deciding if they want to reject that bias or continue to adopt it. If they reject the bias, they're probably not what I would call a racist. If they accept the bias, then that's a racist. We're all surrounded by bias and I'd argue there are biases deeply embedded in humans previously used as survival shortcuts that no longer apply or run counter to modern cultures and rules of societies. What matters is how we consciously identify such biases and how we then act on those observations and work to improve ourselves to become less biased, especially when the bias harms others for no good reason.

[lliamander]

> Everyone has, from their own point of view, good motives and intentions.

And you will almost always make more progress by addressing those sincere motives than you will by labeling them racist.

[mlyle]

If the outcome is racist, it's a problem that needs to be confronted and that the people involved need to be educated about in that context.

Without the systematically bad outcome for a group of disadvantaged people, there is no big problem, after all.

So call it what it is. If the intentions look good, go about it in a gentle way.

[eli]

Motive and intent are not important to the person being discriminated against.

Not getting a job because the hiring manager is outwardly racist and not getting a job because the hiring manager worries you're a poor "culture fit" or that your HBCU degree isn't prestigious enough has the same effect on the job applicant.

[optimiz3]

Ah yes the modern version of original sin.