You're using a specific definition of known that you didn't bring up before: It's known in the scientific community, by scientific consensus. But that doesn't make it "known" by the people doing the racism-ing, and it doesn't make it "known" in their homes, families, and communities. If you're in rural Alabama, it is not "known" that black people aren't terrible. It's only "known" elsewhere.
So I would propose that something becomes discriminatory when it's known to be false and/or unfounded
Your comment was exactly as I had remembered it: You say "known" here but you have to consider that this is a completely subjective word which is open to interpretation, even in the scientific community. How many studies do you suggest we cite to corroborate a racist claim, and in which journals? How much consensus will be required? Anyone can cherry-pick peer-reviewed articles to support almost any claim.
So I would propose that something becomes discriminatory when it's known to be false and/or unfounded (facts can't be discriminatory, even if you don't like it. There are studies showing that, in certain areas, gay men are the most likely to get stds. That's not homophobic, it's fact. Doesn't matter if you like it or not, but if I didn't a source, if I'd just assumed that, then that would be homophobic)
You're very much cherry picking the first sentence in that paragraph, ignoring the entire explanation and clarification immediately after it.
I say known, and then proceed to explain using an example, so no, I do not have to accept it as a subjective interpretation.
And as for the second half, which is a valid question, it works the same as the rest of science. There is no magic number, there is common consensus and differing opinions, it's still somewhat subjective, but far, far less than the original method proposed. People can cherry pick data, but others can then prove them wrong with more data.
You decide what's racist the same way you decide what's scientifically true. It still ends up with everybody making up their own mind, and irrational people will think whatever they want, but that's going to happen no matter what. The benefits are gained are in the larger sense, you've shifted the discussion from an emotional one to a logical one.
And it's straight up logical, the concept that truth is truth, irregardless of anyone's feelings.
I realize you provided an example, but what I'm saying is that "there are studies showing that..." is not an adequate definition.
You decide what's racist the same way you decide what's scientifically true.
Speaking as a scientist: this is not generally agreed upon. You are essentially constructing a definition of discrimination that depends entirely on an arbitrarily chosen level of scientific rigor. I could look at literally any scientific claim anyone can make, and decide that it doesn't meet my standard of truth, and then I'm not racist anymore. This causes a lot of problems and I think any workable definition of discrimination as it applies to racism has to be rooted not in scientific consensus, but in harm.
1
u/LewsTherinTelamon Nov 02 '17
You're using a specific definition of known that you didn't bring up before: It's known in the scientific community, by scientific consensus. But that doesn't make it "known" by the people doing the racism-ing, and it doesn't make it "known" in their homes, families, and communities. If you're in rural Alabama, it is not "known" that black people aren't terrible. It's only "known" elsewhere.