Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

GrahamH · **#601** by **GrahamH** » Oct 02, 2018 1:17 pm

Thommo wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Thommo. You are taking the quote out of context.

No, I'm not. She is describing that view, that's all I've said. I didn't say it summarised her view, or the video or anything else. Watch that part of the video, she describes that view and summarises it with those three words.

That is not out of context.

ETA: Here, transcript:
I think the most effective adaptation of the system of racism to the challenges of the civil rights movement was to reduce a racist to a very simple formula. A racist is an individual - always an individual not a system - who consciously does not like people based on race - must be conscious – and who intentionally seeks to be mean to them. Individual/conscious/intent.

And if that is my definition of a racist then your suggestion that anything I’ve said or done is racist or has a racist impact I’m going to hear that as you’ve just said I was a bad person. You’ve just put me over there in that category. And most of my bias anyway is unconscious…

I appologise for misreading you (I think)
So you were not taking that to be a definition the video argues for, but rather that it argus against?

.I think the DiAngelo is saying that people have a wrong idea of what racism is. It is an error, and that they react in light of that error.

But then your posted this:

Thommo wrote:
I would not summarise the video that way. If it were an accurate summary, then I would say the point of the video is wrong. There is a real meaning of racism, that applies to many actual individuals in which they consciously intend to be racist.

"A real meaning of racism"? Are you suggesting there is also a fake meaning here? In what way do you think the video is wrong? What do you think DiAngelo is saying there?

willhud9 · **#602** by **willhud9** » Oct 02, 2018 1:42 pm

Thommo wrote:
GrahamH wrote:It's not falsifiable that on any single instance the temperature of a beverage is the reason for the assessment.
So what?

So it is wrong to point to that individual and assign that reason. And if people do this, they should not be surprised that their error is criticised and that their finger pointing provokes a reaction.

(Incidentally, reporting of social science like this does make me feel obliged to say that I take the result with some scepticism, most of published science is wrong).

The issue is where racism is clearly defined as an “evil” thing and therefore anyone who does something hinted at being racist must also be “evil” or judged accordingly.

But when fingers are pointed that oftentimes is not what is being implied. It is very rarely I encounter someone with the conscious intent of believing white people are superior to people of color, but it is incredibly common to hear prejudices.

Having racist prejudices =\= being explicitly racist. You are also, I believe, relying on the dictionary definition of racism which is a logical fallacy in of itself. The definition of racism is a complex social study, not easily defined, as the concepts of race and ethnicity are not rigidly defined.

My bias, despite me knowing it’s irrational still pops up from time to time. If I’m walking back to my car after a night at the bar and I see a tall white man behind me I’m rarely nervous, but a tall black man might increase my heart rate. When those thoughts occur I force myself to question why am I nervous and it’s because society in my area has conditioned me to subconsciously believe black men are not wholesome characters. Logically I know I have an equal chance of being mugged by either scenario and logically I know it’s statistically unlikely, but in just a millisecond of a thought I think the one scenario is potentially more frightening than the other.

Now I am not racist, but it’s fair to point out that what my mind processes in seconds is a racial prejudice. It’s not even an active prejudice. I don’t respond with any form of long lasting negative repercussions nor do I suddenly believe to be true that black people are scarier than white people, but it’s a subconscious response.

I’m aware of it, but how many people that experience similar things are equally aware of it? Therein lies the issue. When they aren’t aware of it the prejudice forms externally.

That is why a black man at a Starbucks has the cops called on him despite not doing anything wrong.

Cito di Pense · **#603** by **Cito di Pense** » Oct 02, 2018 1:46 pm

willhud9 wrote:
That is why a black man at a Starbucks has the cops called on him despite not doing anything wrong.

No question, racism should be considered in that case. More details are not going to be forthcoming.

A good data set could show whether or not this is just a local Starbucks problem, or worse yet, an anecdote. Sure, it might happen once, with those racists, over there. And again with those racists over yonder. What we need is data.

If it's a local Starbucks problem, apply pressure to the store manager/

Thommo · **#604** by **Thommo** » Oct 02, 2018 1:48 pm

GrahamH wrote:I appologise for misreading you (I think)
So you were not taking that to be a definition the video argues for, but rather that it argus against?

Thank you.

She certainly doesn't argue for it, or at least it's not the point she's making. In fact I'd suggest that she does believe that such racists exist (and whether or not she does, which isn't really the point, I certainly affirm they do) though. She does say that this is only half the story, because there's another type of racism (which I would even more loosely summarise as institutional racism, but she had her own outline for), which she sees as comparably, or perhaps more (I'm not sure she's that specific) important.

But I wasn't replying to that, I was replying to Spinozasgalt's point about comparisons with original sin.

GrahamH wrote:I think the DiAngelo is saying that people have a wrong idea of what racism is. It is an error, and that they react in light of that error.

As I said, I don't.

I think she thinks that the error is saying that's the only type of racism when there's more to the story, and she interprets defensiveness and a feeling of being categorised as a racist in terms of this. But I didn't actually comment on that.

GrahamH wrote:But then your posted this:

Thommo wrote:
I would not summarise the video that way. If it were an accurate summary, then I would say the point of the video is wrong. There is a real meaning of racism, that applies to many actual individuals in which they consciously intend to be racist.

"A real meaning of racism"? Are you suggesting there is also a fake meaning here?

I said there is more than one genuinely occuring type of racism. Hence "a" and not "the".

In fact I described the two I had in mind in that very post, and I'm not hugely impressed that I'm being enjoined to repeat them, in light of my fear that this conversation is heading the same way as the last umpteen that went down the road of repetition and misunderstanding - I referred to them as classic racism (i.e. overt conscious bias or discrimination by an individual against people based on their perceived racial characteristics) and institutional racism (i.e. systems, bodies or institutions which achieve discriminatory results across populations by means which are not necessarily overt).

GrahamH wrote:In what way do you think the video is wrong?

I didn't say it was.

There is one small detail that I think is mistaken, that the definition of racism as individual/conscious/intent was a parochial response to the civil rights movement instead of pre-dating it. A brief perusal of the literature shows it's her definitions that are the neologisms. This has no real impact on her point or mine though.

So if you're asking me to pick nits, there's one, but I don't think it's exactly a big deal and wasn't intent on saying anything more about it.

GrahamH wrote:What do you think DiAngelo is saying there?

I'm going to put an end to this quiz, because it's still going in the same direction. I've said nothing about the overall message of the video one way or the other. Everything I wanted to say is there already and there's nothing to be gained by repetition.

willhud9 · **#605** by **willhud9** » Oct 02, 2018 1:53 pm

My apologies Thommo for the misunderstanding of your defining racism.

Thommo · **#606** by **Thommo** » Oct 02, 2018 1:53 pm

willhud9 wrote:Having racist prejudices =\= being explicitly racist. You are also, I believe, relying on the dictionary definition of racism which is a logical fallacy in of itself.

No, that isn't a logical fallacy.

Even if it was, I'm not doing it anyway, when I list non-exhaustively two separate definitions of racism and affirm them both.

willhud9 wrote:That is why a black man at a Starbucks has the cops called on him despite not doing anything wrong.

No, that's just overt racism in the classical sense. One individual has been overtly discriminated against by another individual because of the colour of his skin. It's one individual doing something to another individual. It's nothing like the application of a population level statistic to an individual that I was talking about.

GrahamH · **#607** by **GrahamH** » Oct 02, 2018 2:13 pm

Thommo wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Having racist prejudices =\= being explicitly racist. You are also, I believe, relying on the dictionary definition of racism which is a logical fallacy in of itself.

No, that isn't a logical fallacy.

Even if it was, I'm not doing it anyway, when I list non-exhaustively two separate definitions of racism and affirm them both.

willhud9 wrote:That is why a black man at a Starbucks has the cops called on him despite not doing anything wrong.

No, that's just overt racism in the classical sense. One individual has been overtly discriminated against by another individual because of the colour of his skin. It's one individual doing something to another individual. It's nothing like the application of a population level statistic to an individual that I was talking about.

Is it? It could be they call the cops because they see someone behaving suspiciously and they see it as suspicious because of unconscious bias. We can contrast that to someone that thinks to themselves "there's a black man. I don't like them so I'll call the cops just to get him out of here". The first person can tell themselves that aren't racist, that it's not because the man was black, it was the way he was behaving that was disturbing.
Compare that to the hot/cold priming effect of character assessment. The subject doesn't identify the deciding factor, they just think they are making a valid judgement.

willhud9 · **#608** by **willhud9** » Oct 02, 2018 2:27 pm

Correct, malicious intent most likely had nothing to do with that circumstance. But subconscious bias led a person to believe that a black man was acting strangely at a Starbucks and warranted a police call. In that situation the person is not explicitly racist, but has prejudices that were acted on. In that situation, you can’t point fingers at the guy and call him racist, but you can say his actions were racist.

GrahamH · **#609** by **GrahamH** » Oct 02, 2018 2:32 pm

willhud9 wrote:Correct, malicious intent most likely had nothing to do with that circumstance. But subconscious bias led a person to believe that a black man was acting strangely at a Starbucks and warranted a police call. In that situation the person is not explicitly racist, but has prejudices that were acted on. In that situation, you can’t point fingers at the guy and call him racist, but you can say his actions were racist.

You could point out the racism to him, but as the video described, he is likely to take it as an unfair insult because he has an erroneous (overly narrow) definition of racism in mind.

Thommo · **#610** by **Thommo** » Oct 02, 2018 2:59 pm

I think it's far, far more likely that an employee in that situation would deny having discriminated racially at all and that it would have nothing to do with technical definitions put to them by their accuser.

I don't think I've ever seen such a case where it wasn't the facts that were disputed - i.e. "I called the cops because he was acting suspiciously" instead of "I called the cops because he was black". This is hardly surprising as the loss of social capital (like his job) doesn't appear to be affected by the definition of racism applied anyway.

I struggle to find any articles calling these incidents racially discriminatory or racist in which "he called the cops because the guy was black" is not the exact implication.

GrahamH · **#611** by **GrahamH** » Oct 02, 2018 3:06 pm

Thommo wrote:I struggle to find any articles calling these incidents racially discriminatory or racist in which "he called the cops because the guy was black" is not the exact implication.

How is that relevant? Does the person himself recognise his own racism? That is exactly the distinction DiAngelo was making.
We could agree that "he called the cops because the guy was black", accept that that is racism all without assuming that he is consciously, intentionally racist, which is what you assumed when you wrote

that's just overt racism in the classical sense.

It might be that, it might not.

GrahamH · **#612** by **GrahamH** » Oct 02, 2018 3:09 pm

Thommo wrote:I think it's far, far more likely that an employee in that situation would deny having discriminated racially at all and that it would have nothing to do with technical definitions put to them by their accuser.

That's the point. He might honestly deny being racist (your overt, classical sense).
Of course that has nothing to do with definitions put to him by his accuser. It has to do with his own definitions by which he can state "I'm not racist".

laklak · **#613** by **laklak** » Oct 02, 2018 3:11 pm

Why should anyone's "that's unconscious racism" be given any more credence than someone's "I'm not a racist"? It's all just someone saying something. People say shit all day long.

GrahamH · **#614** by **GrahamH** » Oct 02, 2018 3:20 pm

laklak wrote:Why should anyone's "that's unconscious racism" be given any more credence than someone's "I'm not a racist"? It's all just someone saying something. People say shit all day long.

People are acting in discriminatory ways. People aren't accusing others of "unconscious racism" they are pointing to the behaviour and calling that racist. As for "I'm not racist" numerous studies show that people are far more biased than they realise and people tend to apply a very narrow definition of racism to themselves (as DiAngelo explained) so "I'm not racist" doesn't carry much weight in itself.

felltoearth · **#615** by **felltoearth** » Oct 02, 2018 4:22 pm

Thommo wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Thommo. You are taking the quote out of context.

No, I'm not. She is describing that view, that's all I've said. I didn't say it summarised her view, or the video or anything else. Watch that part of the video, she describes that view and summarises it with those three words.

That is not out of context.

ETA: Here, transcript:
I think the most effective adaptation of the system of racism to the challenges of the civil rights movement was to reduce a racist to a very simple formula. A racist is an individual - always an individual not a system - who consciously does not like people based on race - must be conscious – and who intentionally seeks to be mean to them. Individual/conscious/intent.

And if that is my definition of a racist then your suggestion that anything I’ve said or done is racist or has a racist impact I’m going to hear that as you’ve just said I was a bad person. You’ve just put me over there in that category. And most of my bias anyway is unconscious…

Yes, she describes that view in contrast to what her real point is, that is unconscious bias vs individual/conscious/intent. They are two different things. Her point is that recognizing and discussing unconscious bias with respect to racism is hampered by the individual/conscious/intent understanding of racism. The latter is often used to shut discussion down about the former.

felltoearth · **#616** by **felltoearth** » Oct 02, 2018 4:29 pm

laklak wrote:Why should anyone's "that's unconscious racism" be given any more credence than someone's "I'm not a racist"? It's all just someone saying something. People say shit all day long.

I'm more concerned about people doing shit, myself. Unconscious bias relates to how we function as a community, the policies our governments put into place, and who gets better or worse treatment.

Thommo · **#617** by **Thommo** » Oct 02, 2018 5:12 pm

felltoearth wrote:
Thommo wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Thommo. You are taking the quote out of context.

No, I'm not. She is describing that view, that's all I've said. I didn't say it summarised her view, or the video or anything else. Watch that part of the video, she describes that view and summarises it with those three words.

That is not out of context.

ETA: Here, transcript:
I think the most effective adaptation of the system of racism to the challenges of the civil rights movement was to reduce a racist to a very simple formula. A racist is an individual - always an individual not a system - who consciously does not like people based on race - must be conscious – and who intentionally seeks to be mean to them. Individual/conscious/intent.

And if that is my definition of a racist then your suggestion that anything I’ve said or done is racist or has a racist impact I’m going to hear that as you’ve just said I was a bad person. You’ve just put me over there in that category. And most of my bias anyway is unconscious…

Yes, she describes that view in contrast to what her real point is, that is unconscious bias vs individual/conscious/intent. They are two different things. Her point is that recognizing and discussing unconscious bias with respect to racism is hampered by the individual/conscious/intent understanding of racism. The latter is often used to shut discussion down about the former.

And if I'm taking it out of context, that means I've said or implied otherwise. Like I say, I haven't. If I'm mistaken (given that I've now had this tangential point explained to me about four times) I'd appreciate it if someone could actually point out how using her own summary of this view verbatim is unfair or where I've done something else to merit this response.

There's no false attribution, miscommunication, misimplication or anything that constitutes using the comment out of context here that I can see. Like I say, in fact I rather suspect she does think this sort of racist exists in people like Richard Spencer anyway. Maybe she doesn't. I guess it doesn't really matter. I do.

felltoearth · **#618** by **felltoearth** » Oct 02, 2018 5:18 pm

It’s not unfair, it’s just that it is not the point of the video. It’s not the Richard Spencer types she is concerned with and, as you say, is tangential to the discussion. It’s the people who get upset when you point out unconscious bias, who get uncomfortable and think you are putting them into the Richard Spencer category.

Thommo · **#619** by **Thommo** » Oct 02, 2018 5:36 pm

felltoearth wrote:It’s not unfair, it’s just that it is not the point of the video.

So to be clear it's not unfair, it is accurate and it was never alleged to be the point of the video.

Can you see why I don't think "You're taking it out of context" is accurate to describe that situation?

I think maybe I need a forum holiday, because I apparently am completely unable to make myself clear without rubbing people up the wrong way. It's getting me down, so I'm clearly doing none of us any favours.

felltoearth · **#620** by **felltoearth** » Oct 02, 2018 6:24 pm

Thommo wrote:
felltoearth wrote:It’s not unfair, it’s just that it is not the point of the video.

So to be clear it's not unfair, it is accurate and it was never alleged to be the point of the video.

Can you see why I don't think "You're taking it out of context" is accurate to describe that situation?

I think maybe I need a forum holiday, because I apparently am completely unable to make myself clear without rubbing people up the wrong way. It's getting me down, so I'm clearly doing none of us any favours.

You didn’t rub me the wrong way (not that I’m interested in the right way :naughty2:

) I guess I just don’t understand why that would be your take away from watching that, because it does seem besides the point. Maybe it’s me that’s missing something.

Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Re: Serena Williams accuses referee of sexism

Who is online