[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.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Assuming that's true, all it says is that, once you're getting arrested, you're about even on the probability of being shot.

Which is the thing the other poster had the false impression was not the case.

> What it doesn't address is the increased probability of Black me to be arrested to begin with.

But now you're talking about a totally different issue. And if black men commit more violent crimes as a result of historical and other factors, what do you propose that the police do about that?

[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.