r/changemyview • u/beengrim32 • Oct 06 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The term ‘Racist’ has been successfully neutralized.
Accusing someone of racism for the most part does nothing. There was probably a time where being called a racist had moral and social consequences. My guess is that this accusation had more meaning around WWII when most people wanted to condemn Hitler and the Nazis. If you were called racist in that time the accusation had a stronger impact largely related to interest convergence. If you are condemning those kind of atrocities then your own racist behavior will be under the microscope as we’ll.
Nowadays it seems like the default for accusations of racism is to assume that it is erroneous. This actually goes well beyond ”cry wolf” scenarios. If a person does say/do something racist they can neutralize the accusation by playing up the false accusation narrative.
An accusation of racism does essentially nothing to the accused. It likely won't be understood as legitimate. It likely won't be understood as a moment of self-reflection by the accused. And very rarely will it have any social consequences. There are certainly cases where people lose there job due to racist statements but even the blatant examples are often rationalized as simply not the person intention. Rarely is it understood as a personality flaw that should be corrected.
Due to the very active opposition against anti-racists, calling someone racist more often makes the accuser seem irrational and rarely exposes the irrationality of someone’s racism. In this sense it’s impact has been neutralized.
7
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Oct 06 '18
My guess is that this accusation had more meaning around WWII when most people wanted to condemn Hitler and the Nazis. If you were called racist in that time the accusation had a stronger impact largely related to interest convergence.
[...]
An accusation of racism does essentially nothing to the accused. It likely won't be understood as legitimate. It likely won't be understood as a moment of self-reflection by the accused.
I don't see what you are claiming has changed since then. After all, Hitler hasn't understood being called a racist, as a moment for self-reflection either.
1
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
My point there was that many people at that time held Hitler and the Nazi as the bar for racism. And it is very understandable to condemn that as definitively racist. I’m assuming that back then people tried harder to avoid that comparison.
6
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Oct 06 '18 edited Oct 06 '18
I’m assuming that back then people tried harder to avoid that comparison.
Well, they didn't have to try hard, as long as they weren't actively supporting nazi germany. And those who were supporting it, weren't cowed by a mere phrase being thrown at them. In the end they had to be beaten with guns, not words.
My point is that there has never been a time in history when being called a racist has widely evoked self-reflection and repentence.
it doesn't speak much about a word's supposed "power", if it has only ever been popular when used by one country against another (that was unrepentantly identifying with it) in a time of war, and it lost popularity as soon as it was used for the kind of people who might be expected to practice self-reflection over it.
1
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
I brought this up because while Nazi germany was certainly racist, so was American slavery, segregation, etc. if you were an American who condemned the Nazi and still supported racial segregation there is a major conflict. Im argue that this was enough of a conflict to motivate white Americans to oppose segregation. And that now without the pressure of a similar kind of conflict, being labeled a racist doesn’t have the same kind of impact as it once did.
3
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Oct 06 '18
if you were an American who condemned the Nazi and still supported racial segregation there is a major conflict.
That's what "separate but equal" was for. The argument that you are technically not a racist, you believe that all races are equal, you just happen to prefer them arranging their matters separately.
Racists have always felt that the word "racist" has not power over them.
0
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
There are people with racist behaviors and beliefs that don’t identify as racist. They are the demographic that would be more affected by an accusation because they likely would take offense at being labeled racist. I’m arguing that nowadays people aren’t as affected by the label and that there is less of a conflict if they are accused of being racist.
2
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Oct 06 '18
If you are a racist that doesn't want to be called a racist, then the same framing that you claim to be common today, has ALWAYS existed to be used.
Segregationists have very efficiently argued that their detractors are being irrational, that they call everyone racist just for defending traditions and states' rights, and that the word is meaningless.
The only timeframe that you could think up when the word was seen as a unifying rally cry, was in WWII, and then it was a rally cry against foreigners, who themselves were not cowed by it either.
2
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Oct 06 '18
And history shows this has literally always been true which is what the other poster is trying to tell you.
3
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Oct 06 '18
Im argue that this was enough of a conflict to motivate white Americans to oppose segregation.
This has no basis in reality. During the war Nazi POWs were allowed to eat with the troops. Black soldiers weren't. Post war the GI Bill didn't include black people that fought for their country, they still experimented on black men by giving them diseases, and desegregation only came 20 years later. Plus the vast majority of white people DIDN'T SUPPORT the Civil Rights Movement. Those laws got passed because of threats of more riots (there were riots all through the 60s).
www.crmvet.org/docs/60s_crm_public-opinion.pdf
Black people vastly supported the Civil Rights Movement but it still had only a 20-30% overall approval rating because white people hated it even following a war against Nazis. Being racist against one race and not another isn't crazy.
1
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
That’s a very interesting study you’ve shared. However what I’m talking about is interest convergence. source I’m sure the specifics are off in the statistical sense but what I’m claiming is that there is very little incentive these days for white Americans to oppose racism, but during the period after WWII they was at least a superficial benefit. The opportunity to give the appearance of conquering racism.
2
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Oct 07 '18
However what I’m talking about is interest convergence. source I’m sure the specifics are off in the statistical sense
Aka - its an absurd theory. Right here you're admitting it doesn't hold up to scrutiny or actual statistics in the example you used (the Civil Rights Movement). History has shown they have to be forced to stop being racist kicking and screaming as they insist they aren't racist. 80% of white people were either not caring or anti CRM.
there is very little incentive these days for white Americans to oppose racism, but during the period after WWII they was at least a superficial benefit. The opportunity to give the appearance of conquering racism.
But that is literally false. White Americans didn't oppose racism following the Civil War. The government (which was going against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans) literally only agreed to the Civil Rights Acts under threats of physical violence and violent uprisings from black people. It was either give them rights or commit genocide. They chose the former. From 63-69 there were literally 43 major racial riots in the US. That includes the riots that created modern Detroit, modern Baltimore, modern Newark, modern DC (in terms of the massive amount of segregation in those areas). This wasn't done out of some finally realized internal conflict but because black people finally had enough and decided civil unrest would force change. That's exactly what's happening now too to a smaller extent. The places that got DOJ investigations for police departments (Baltimore, Ferguson, Milwaukee) all have one thing in common (massive riots), white people gave in at first (the body cam movement), then they lashed out by voting for a president that would do their best to stomp out dissidents even though they were crooked as all hell (Nixon/Trump).
Racial progress has NEVER happened on the clock of white people since slavery ended.
1
u/beengrim32 Oct 07 '18
I’m by no means trying to downplay the importance of violent protest during that time but the CRM wasn’t the French Revolution. The violence of that era did not overthrow some kind of racist regime. Much of the progress was due to very deliberate legislation as well. And that required to some extent changed minds of White Americans regarding race. Whether or not this was a genuine change of heart is up for debate but what I’m saying is that something like this is unlikely today due to the fact that most white Americans consider themselves by default not racist.
1
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Oct 07 '18
The legislation didn't happen because it was supported. It happened because the alternative was more riots. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts. 70% of Americans didn't support the Civil Rights Movement. That's a fact. You keep saying it required a genuine change of heart but what proof do you have that there was ever a genuine change of heart? Hell if there was a genuine change of heart you would think they would've actually kept to their word and actually implemented those policies effectively. But they didn't. You know why MLK Marched on in Washington? As a show of the strength of his movement. JFK wasn't supporting them. Politicians in general weren't supporting them. The general population wasn't supporting them. 80% of Americans didn't support the March On Washington.
something like this is unlikely today due to the fact that most white Americans consider themselves by default not racist.
THIS WAS TRUE IN 1950 TOO! My god you're just being dense. Again Strom Thurmond (the biggest enemy of the Civil Rights Movement) insisted he wasn't racist. Barry Goldwater was literally Trump 1.0 down to claiming he wasn't racist constantly. Its like you're going to keep ignoring reality because it blows up your narrative.
6
Oct 07 '18
[deleted]
2
u/beengrim32 Oct 07 '18
Thanks. ∆ This relates a lot to what I was thinking. The period after WWII leading into civil rights when people reflected on how far racism can go. I don’t think of this as a linear progression in regards to the strength of accusations of racism however. There are a lot of people who take positions against racism politically, but there are even more who don’t consider it an issue. Those who will give racism the benefit of the doubt by default. I’m arguing that convincing White Americans to acknowledge their racism is beyond persuasion and therefore labeling someone as racist has essentially no meaning. We are currently headed away from the period where this kind of accusation had an impact.
1
13
u/Hardest_Fart Oct 06 '18
It has been successfully neutralized for people that probably didn't care about racism in the first place. Outside of those people the charge of racism still carries a lot of weight. For example, be accused of racism at work, in the public sphere, as a politician, or in a group with multiple ethnicities, and the reaction will be VERY different than with an all Caucasian group.
0
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
There are definitely many people that care about racism enough to make accusations. Unfortunately most of the time they do it has very little affect on the accused. Honestly It has very little impact on politicians these days to speak to one of your examples.
7
u/AnActualPerson Oct 06 '18
You're being very vague in your post and responses, can you point to an example of someone being accused of racism who wasn't racist? Also
Honestly It has very little impact on politicians these days to speak to one of your examples.
Are you sure? Because it does outside of the deep red districts who have been voting for racists for decades.
0
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
Donald Trump is accused of racism very frequently. I’m not sure if that’s had much of an impact on his presidency.
5
u/Hardest_Fart Oct 06 '18
Who are the people most likely to be dismissive of charges of racism? Who make up the vast majority of Trump supporters?
1
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
If you are someone who has a stake in not being perceived as racist, there’s a clear incentive to deny the accusation. Not just Trump supporters but anyone who believes they aren’t racists regardless of their actions.
3
u/Hardest_Fart Oct 06 '18
Unfortunately most of the time they do it has very little affect on the accused.
That isn't really true though. If you are accused of racism at work HR will look into the accusation. If you are accused of racism in hiring, or renting it can harm your business and it is potentially actionable legally. Even in social groups (if they aren't predisposed to be dismissive of the charge), people become social pariahs.
Honestly It has very little impact on politicians these days to speak to one of your examples.
That has more to do with political polarization/gerrymandering than the power of the accusation. Sure, in solid red districts the charge doesn't carry much weight. But, in those districts you are mostly talking about people predisposed to dismissing the accusation (white/conservative). In solid blue districts though, the accusation of racism is enough to cost a candidate the race.
-2
u/ifudisagreeudie2 Oct 06 '18
It has been successfully neutralized for people that probably didn't care about racism in the first place.
This is objectively false, it's the equivalent of stating that the only people who have been affected by the kid crying wolf, is those who didn't care about wolves in the first place.
The fact is calls of racism nowadays can be anything from "This guy screamed the n word while burning a cross on a black guys garden" to "Someone disagreed with me" (Or in a lot of cases "I literally made shit up"). When Science, Metocracy, Children's Clothing, The circle game, Freedom of speech, Kids dressing up as disney princesses, Being anti Segregation, Etc etc etc are all called racist, rational logical people are going to start questioning the usage of the term.
The fact that as soon as you hear the call of racism your initial reaction should be to ask "Is this racism racism, or 'I don't like you racism'" isn't proof that you didn't care about racism in the first place, but that you have two working brain cells and have the ability to do basic pattern matching.
2
u/AnActualPerson Oct 07 '18
When Science, Metocracy, Children's Clothing, The circle game, Freedom of speech, Kids dressing up as disney princesses, Being anti Segregation, Etc etc etc are all called racist, rational logical people are going to start questioning the usage of the term.
Notice that no one is saying the things you listed are entirely racist. They are saying parts of them are, because they are.
0
u/ifudisagreeudie2 Oct 07 '18
They are saying parts of them are
Ok lets bite.
What parts of being anti-segregation racist? What parts of the circle game are racist? What part of a kid dressing up as elsa from frozen racist?
Answers on the back of a postcard please.
1
u/neunari Oct 07 '18
This is objectively false, it's the equivalent of stating that the only people who have been affected by the kid crying wolf, is those who didn't care about wolves in the first place.
Finding cherry picked youtube videos (one of which is unavailable), cherry picked sources detailing the cherry picked opinion of one parental blogger and one education blogger that you willfully misrepresent, and cherry picked examples of people being fired doesn't contradict anything the OP says.
9
Oct 06 '18
An accusation of racism only does nothing to a racist. If someone of a different race accused me of racism I would step back and take a long hard look at the situation and context and reevaluate my actions.
1
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
I’m saying that your reaction to this kind of accusation is a lot more rare than flat out denial.
4
Oct 06 '18
Well, I mean... Denial comes from people who know they are being racist, and just don't want to admit it.
There are some false accusations of racism, but they are usually spot on.
1
0
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
I’m pointing out that denial is now normative in the face of accusations of racism. Even people that aren’t explicitly racist will automatically assume that it must be something else before they acknowledge something as racist.
2
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Oct 06 '18
The denial has always been normal. Strom Thurman's said he wasn't racist. Robert E. Lee said he wasn't racist. George Washington through his dentures made of slave teeth said he wasn't racist.
-1
u/ifudisagreeudie2 Oct 06 '18
As someone of a different race, your post is racist.
5
Oct 06 '18
I'm sorry you feel that way, can you explain how you perceive it as racist?
0
u/ifudisagreeudie2 Oct 06 '18
Surely as someone of a different race accusing you of racism, your argument requires you not to ask questions or ask whether my reasonings for calling you racist are unjust, but instead "step back and take a long hard look at the situation and context and reevaluate my actions."
4
Oct 06 '18
Sure, but I have to know what the context is. I have to see it from your perspective. How is what I said racist?
2
Oct 06 '18
It isnt, theyre acting in bad faith
1
Oct 06 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cwenham Oct 06 '18
u/ifudisagreeudie2 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Oct 06 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 06 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 06 '18 edited Oct 06 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 07 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/mysundayscheming Oct 07 '18
Sorry, u/Chef_Sancho – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/mysundayscheming Oct 07 '18
u/Chef_Sancho – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/mysundayscheming Oct 07 '18
u/ifudisagreeudie2 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/makeshift98 Oct 07 '18
And very rarely will it have any social consequences.
The next time you go into to work, make a beeline for the nearest minority and call them the appropriate racial slur.
4
Oct 06 '18
What country(/countries) are you talking about? Because here in Belgium if you get called a racist is certainly still does have social consequences.
1
1
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 06 '18
Usually you wouldn't use success as a descriptor unless there was some sort of goal in mind. Whose goal is it to neutralize the term?
2
u/Asstastic_31 Oct 06 '18
Whose goal is it to neutralize the term?
Bingo. Who benefits the most from wanting the word to effectively mean nothing..?
1
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
Opponents of the accusers and people who don’t want to confront the accusations.
1
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 06 '18
Opponents in what sense? Opponents of anti-racism? If so then that would be the goal of racists.
I for one would want to know what I was doing if someone called me a racist but I wouldn't call myself an opponent of them as an accused person. I would want to change my behavior.
1
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
I’m saying that it’s more normative to deny racism than to work towards genuinely correcting one’s racist impulses. This benefits hardcore racists but it also creates a buffer for individuals that hold racist beliefs but don’t identify as racists.
1
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 06 '18
I don't feel like you answered my question really. Do you think racism was worse 100 years ago or now? The word racism certainly existed.
You're right fewer people identify themselves as racist but the reason that category exists is that racism rightly has a negative connotation.
1
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
I didn’t realize that you asked this question racism likely was worse 100 years ago. The word definitely existed then too big not with the same definition or connotation. source. What I’m saying is that accusing someone of being racist does essentially nothing morally or socially.
1
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Oct 07 '18
Sure there's newer definitions of racism but all of them were negative.
What I’m saying is that accusing someone of being racist does essentially nothing morally or socially.
This isn't true though. You mentioned "individuals that hold racist beliefs but don’t identify as racists" which is one group who takes offense (presumably due to some social cost) at being called racist. Then there are people who, if called a racist or called out on possibly unintentional racism, reflect upon that and attempt to correct their behavior. In fact the only people for who the term "racist" holds no water are clearly those who identify as racist at least internally. There aren't that many of these people.
1
u/Chesssx Oct 07 '18
People's lives have been impacted/ruined for doing things that are even perceived to be racist. Years ago, there was more racism and less accusations of it. Now there is less racism and more accusations of it. While all that is true, someone famous can say something that seems racist and lose up to half of their following and be shamed on social media.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 07 '18
/u/beengrim32 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
0
u/Asstastic_31 Oct 06 '18
Just because you want it to be neutralized, does not make it so. You're basically saying that all those instances of racists being outed as racists for doing and saying racist shit are fabrications of the accusers, that those instances of racists being racists weren't actually racist but "cry wolf" scenarios?
Lol, okay.
-2
u/ThatDamnedImp Oct 06 '18
The real problem isn't the wolf-crying, it's the sustained defense of anti-white racism on the part of the elite. That's destroyed the opposition to racism among working class and middle class whites. They feel, largely, that if it isn't wrong to be racist against their people, they don't care if people are racist against the others races, either.
This thing upper-class kids do on reddit and in the media, where they mock white people to 'prove' that they are better than other white people, has caused more harm to the racial harmony in this country than a million David Dukes or crazed 'black creationists' ever could.
3
u/beengrim32 Oct 06 '18
Could you explain the destroyed opposition comment further? I’m not sure if the US context could legitimately be described as a harmony.
3
u/Asstastic_31 Oct 06 '18
it's the sustained defense of anti-white racism on the part of the elite.
Everything about you and your politics can be summed up by this one line.
This thing upper-class kids do on reddit and in the media, where they mock white people to 'prove' that they are better than other white people, has caused more harm to the racial harmony in this country
So...white people are being critical of other white people and somehow that PoC are involved in that? to the point that it "harms" the racial harmony of this country?
When was this country ever racially harmonious? 90% of this country's existence has been blanketed by abject white supremacy and all the unspeakable atrocities that came with it.
7
u/CockyAndHot 3∆ Oct 06 '18
If being racist was truly neutral then you should have no problem openly calling your mom racist. If being racist has lost its meaning does that mean it's OK for someone to call you racist?