[davidw]

My opinion is that a white guy (you: https://twitter.com/#!/mikekeen ) saying that people getting upset about racism are 'backwards' is either mind-boggling insensitive or out and out trolling. Nothing rude about it - that's how I see it.

I can accept people saying "luckily, in this day and age, I think it's not so much of a problem" as something up for debate, but to state that those angered by discrimination are "backwards" and "just like the racists" is one of the most vile comments I have ever read here.

[wpietri]

I see you're taking some heat for this comment, but I agree entirely. Trolling seems the more polite interpretation, because otherwise you'd be accusing somebody of levels of ignorance and arrogance that are mind-boggling to me.

Racism does of course exist and is a problem. There's a ton of research on this. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.projectimplicit.net/media.php http://www.projectimplicit.net/articles.php

But one great example is a study where they sent out the same resumes with different names at the top; some sounded black and some sounded white. The "black" resumes got significantly fewer callbacks, and on "black" resumes increases in skill and experience mattered significantly less:

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/spring03/racialbias.htm...

[stonemetal]

some sounded black and some sounded white.

The research on what people name their children shows very little racial correlation after controlling for wealth. Though it does show high correlation with wealth and status. So showing a bias against names poor people choose regardless of race then claiming it is about blacks is poor form.

[wpietri]

If you're curious about their particular experimental design, you can read the paper here: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/pdf/bertrand.pdf

[gizmo]

So his opinion should be dismissed 'cuz he's white? It's a topic where white people aren't allowed to talk about, except if we wish to talk in politically correct platitudes?

I agree with you that racism is still a real problem and that k33n's comment seems somewhat out of touch. However, what you say is tantamount to "shut up because you're white", and that's not cool either.

You actually went to the trouble of looking up his race in order to make your point. Think about that for a second. You looked up his race in order make a judgement about what he wrote. Didn't your irony detectors go off at that point?

[wpietri]

As a white person in the US, I'll tell you true: my opinion on racism is much less well informed than the average non-white person. Because a) I almost never experience it, b) I am less inclined to notice it, and c) non-white people are very unlikely to talk to me about their experiences and thoughts on the topic.

So yes, a person's race is entirely relevant to considering the quality of their opinions on racism. For basically the same reason that I will happily weight a person's opinions on software development based on whether they're an experienced coder or a non-technical manager. Experience matters.

[gizmo]

I agree with the statistics (racism is real; white people are less like to be discriminated against or experience indirect racism) but draw the opposite conclusion.

When dealing with issues of discrimination the point is to treat everybody equally, to treat people based on their merits and not based on the color of their skin or the statistics of their demographic. If we conclude from research that one race is more intelligent than another, or taller than another, or has more aptitude in some domain, then a rational agent would reason: "well, this person is from domain D, and people from domain D have less aptitude in Y, and since I am hiring people for that aptitude, I am less inclined to hire this person.". Logically sound, but still discriminatory. It's discriminatory because the person is treated based on the demographic he belongs to, not on his or her individual merits. So even if the research points out that one demographic is inferior to another demographic on one axis that still doesn't justify treating an individual based on his membership of a demographic. To put it bluntly, if research shows (it doesn't) that white people are absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt better at programming than black people discrimination against black people would still be wrong. The differences in aptitude between the individuals always trump differences in aptitude between large groups.

So when you say "a person's race is entirely relevant", I think you're completely and terribly wrong. Because it's irrelevant whether a typical white person understands less about racism than a typical black person. What matters is whether the specific individual understands. Again, the individual is not to be judged based on his membership of a demographic.

Yes, a typical white person understands less about racism than a typical black person. And a majority of the prison population consists of black people. And if you apply those generic traits of the demographic to the individual you're racist. When you judge a black person on his statistical likelihood of having a criminal record then that's racist. When you judge a white person on his statistical likelihood of ignorance on race issues that's also racist.

[mck8]

It seems likely that k33n's opinion regarding racism in the world is, like most opinions, based largely on personal observations and experiences rather than a careful consideration of all available data. He does not observe racism to be a significant problem and thus concludes that racism is not prevalent or relevant today. You argue that k33n's race is irrelevant to his reasoning.

Both of you are incorrect. We have two hypotheses: racism either is or is not a relevant problem. And, we have that k33n does not observe much racism. We (and k33n) should update our beliefs based on the ratio P(k33n does not observe racism|racism is not relevant)/P(k33n does not observe racism|racism is relevant). The value of this ratio depends on k33n's race. If k33n is white, he's unlikely to observe much racism in either case, and the ratio's value is close to 1. If k33n is black, he's much more likely to not observe racism if racism is not prevalent, so the ratio's value is high and useful for updating beliefs.

You're also arguing that we ought not conclude that someone cannot understand racism simply because they are white. I agree with you, but I don't think that's the issue here. The issue is that k33n is white and seems to glibly conclude that racism isn't a real problem. He couldn't have reached this conclusion by looking at statistics because, as you know, the statistics push you toward the opposition conclusion. So, he probably came to this conclusion because he observed that racism isn't a problem for him personally. In doing so, he was being unreasonable and somewhat callous.

[wpietri]

Taking four paragraphs to get to your conclusion is a good tactic there. Because maybe by the end people will have forgotten that I'm not actually advocating judging people by their skin color.

[gizmo]

It pains me that in 2011 I still have to explain you can't justify discrimination (of any type) with statistics.

[wpietri]

That would be an interesting and relevant point if I had actually tried to justify discrimination with statistics.

[davidw]

I didn't say "shut up because you're white". I said that someone who, in the US, is not likely to be the victim of much discrimination due to the color of his skin should have a little bit more respect for those who are, and those, in general, who are angered by discrimination. Saying he doesn't think racism is an issue is one thing, calling people who are victims of it 'backwards' is galling.

[gizmo]

It is tantamount to "shut up". That's what I said. You dismissed his point of view because of his skin color. You looked up his race and based your opinion on him based on that. Had he been of black or asian descent you wouldn't have made the argument you made. You even acknowledge this. You wanted to make an argument but you quickly had to look up if his race matched your preconceived notions about his race because otherwise your argument wouldn't have been valid. On the internet.

I don't know how to spell this out further. Are you really this obtuse?

[davidw]

I would have been equally offended had he been black or asian. I didn't look at his profile until after my first response to him, and I looked because I was curious if I really was interacting with someone who was simply trolling for fun.

[k33n]

Hey davidw, why don't you misrepresent what I said some more? I didn't say that the victims of racism were backwards. Anyone who is a victim of an actual crime should be treated with dignity and respect. People who get bent out of shape about a rude military contractor acting like an ignorant ass ARE backwards.

[davidw]

There are plenty of cases where racism doesn't end up being "an actual crime", because, rightly so, the standard of proof for "actual crimes" is fairly high. In other words, there are way more cases of racist behavior than actual "crimes" that can be pursued in a court of law.

> People who get bent out of shape about a rude military contractor acting like an ignorant ass ARE backwards.

People who don't stand up and say "not on my watch" in the face of injustice are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

[k33n]

davidw, If you think your last comment was in the spirit of respectful debate then you should go back and re-read it a few times. If you don't want to respect my opinion, that is not my problem.

Racism is irrelevant. Racists are irrelevant. Society doesn't take them seriously. Racists would have zero power over anyone if nobody took their actions or words seriously. Someone doesn't want to give you a job because they are racist? Their loss. Move on. Would you really want to work for someone like that anyway?

[davidw]

I do not believe your comment was worthy of respect, frankly.

If you'd started with your comment above saying that "racism is irrelevant", perhaps I'd have called it a bit naive, but taken no offense. To make the connection between people incensed by discrimination to those who perpetrate it is very, very offensive.

Racism is very much relevant as long as people have power over other people (which is part and parcel of all complex societies), be it political or economic. You can't disregard someone not selling you a house or giving you a job or letting you marry who you wish, or burning a cross on your lawn.

Are things better these days? Certainly! Is racism a non-issue? I don't think so. Are people like Brad Feld, who get angry about discrimination "backwards"? Hell no!

[chernevik]

The "racist" tag has become a contemporary excommunication. That might be good were it always applied accurately. But perhaps the diligence of a Soledad O'Brien, interested more in arresting video than strict fairness to subject, makes the tag something very dangerous.

There was a day when people thought witches necessarily worse than the people who spotted witches. Go look at how that turned out.

But of course you and yours wouldn't be so stupid and unfair.

HELLO DOWN-VOTERS. Why bother framing a response when you can just misuse a forum moderation tool? It's intelligence of a kind . . .

[davidw]

Due to its seriousness, it certainly is not a label to be bandied about lightly, but that's entirely besides the point in this case.

I was talking about whether people who get offended at actual, real cases of racism are "backwards" or not.

[oldcigarette]

What does his being white have to do with anything? I smell racismz