[jpmcglone]

It’s more clear to me than ever now that the left and the right do not use the word “racist” the same way.

The left thinks of racism in terms of outcome and the right thinks of racism in terms of intent.

We could benefit from better language around these concepts, and honest dialogue about them too.

[dgzl]

> We could benefit from better language around these concepts

I believe this is a very under-rated problem today's public is facing. Not just these concepts, but many political terms are misused in today's climate, making for a conversationally ignorant population.

[hoaw]

I don't see how it is being misused. This sort of distinction is pretty basic e.g. philosophy. People simply disagree. More and more people not understanding the basics in favor of whatever they read on social media might be a problem though.

[dleslie]

I feel like a writer once discussed the power that exists in limiting and controlling the language used in public discourse... /s

[maceurt]

What I get from people on the left is that an unequal outcome is indicative of racism, however subtle that racism is. The only other explanations for an unequal outcome are biological differences between races (do not want to get into that) and races haves advantages over others from past history.

[hannasanarion]

Unequal outcome is not indicative of racism, it is racism. That's the point: racism is an outcome, not an intent. An unknowing, unfeeling beurocratic system can be racist, even if there isn't a speck of racial bias in the hearts of the practitioners and designers, simply due to historical quirks as you point out, or design mistakes.

[tomp]

Other possible explanations include at least culture and background (parental wealth, connections and education), possibly others.

[dgzl]

There's a severe problem forming in today's outrage climate, and I'm not really sure how to even address it.

[notacoward]

I think that implies a symmetry that doesn't exist. Vanishingly few people care about effects but not intent, because intent inevitably leads to effects. This creates a continuum, not a mirror image: consider neither, consider only intent, consider both. Those on the left mostly consider both, with a few considering only intent. Those on the right mostly consider only intent, with a few (racists by any definition) considering neither.

Your formulation also misses another very important nuance. I don't think most people on the right don't consider effects. They mostly know that such effects exist, and quite often feel bad about that. However, they also believe that addressing only intent (or "procedural fairness") is sufficient to make those effects go away, and that more assertive measures create "reverse discrimination" and/or infringe upon liberty. I'm not going to argue whether they're right or wrong, but it's not about consideration. "Strategy" might be closer to the mark. Most on the right (not counting the true racists) do want to end racism. They just reject the left/center prescription for doing so.

[matt9189]

Broad statements about the left and right are divisive, ignoring the spectrum of beliefs, and this is not a good summary. Just as two examples, housing and education policies are frequently designed with the intent of segregation, though it is impossible to prove intent in most cases. And so, the actual outcomes need to be used in courts to demonstrate racist intent. No one will ever openly admit that they don't want the, for example (as this is common in these cases), poor, mostly black children in their school. But they will also actively ignore all of the research that shows a benefit to their own children with increased diversity. And so intent can be assumed. People will hurt their own families to defend their racist beliefs. Maybe we could use better language, but what is more important is using the language we have more clearly.

[gjs278]

when I went to school a poor black kid stole a portion of my lunch every single day in 2nd grade (stupid policy that you had to leave your lunch on an unattended desk, he knew which bag was mine and took the granola bar.) my parents moved me to a catholic school which had basically no black kids. the bullying was still there but nobody ever stole from me or really anyone else. no fights basically ever.

we move, I go back to a more diverse school. fights, my graphing calculator stolen... what’s the possible benefit of having poor people in your school? until social programs make it so my lunch doesn’t need to be stolen to feed a kid, I fail to see how the non poor students are better off.

[seizethecheese]

This problem exists accross disciplines. I heard someone defend the DSM manual as simply a way to standardize how psychiatrists think and talk about mental health issues. Otherwise, the field would be chaos.

Perhaps we need a DSM for society level malfunctions, with strict definitions?

[matt4077]

That’s not true.

It’s just that racist intend is almost always impossible to prove. Outcome therefore becomes a needed proxy, but only after excluding other factors, by, for example, normalizing for age and income.

Two landmark studies in this regard come to mind are (a) how the success rate at an orchestra doubled among women after auditions were changed to a “blind” format not allowing the decision-makers to see the applicants’ gender, and (b) how changing applicants’ names (and nothing else) could impact their chances to be invited to interviews.

[jpmcglone]

You use the word racist to mean two different things.

The basketball team being all black isn't racism and it isn't due to racism.

If I saw a basketball team (in the NBA) of all white people, I would suspect racism, but it's important to point out that the outcome (an all white NBA team) is NOT racist in itself. Even if it is likely due to racism.

So, I think we should stop calling the outcomes 'racist' and say what we mean: "I suspect this outcome is due to racism"

I think that will make the whole conversation a lot easier to have.

I don't think its advantageous to certain political entities, however, if we have this conversation. There is one party in particular that I think relies on people to believe that their problems are outside of their control, so that maybe they'll outsource the problem solving to the government.

Maybe I have it pinned all wrong, but I will never know if we can't talk about racism and outcomes of what may or may not be racism as two separate things.

[sgustard]

Given that AI has no "intent" for the foreseeable future, we can only judge AI in terms of outcomes.

Is a robot arm that kills anyone who stands near it a murderer?

[cmiles74]

Thinking of racism in terms of the intent is a way to take the issue less seriously, to force the issue into the realm of opinions and beliefs. If the intent of the perpetrator is the deciding factor, then it is always arguable that perpetrator's intent was not specifically racist; perhaps it was driven by a misunderstanding, etc. Since it was informed by misunderstanding, it isn't racist. And so on.

It's an old tactic, I don't think changing the terms will make much difference.

[blfr]

But racism is from the realm of opinions and beliefs.

[jstanley]

Racism is discrimination based on race, everything else is not racism.

[malvosenior]

> If the intent of the perpetrator is the deciding factor, then it is always arguable that perpetrator's intent was not specifically racist; perhaps it was driven by a misunderstanding, etc. Since it was informed by misunderstanding, it isn't racist.

Are you saying that this is racism. Most people would define what you outlined as not rascist.

[toasterlovin]

The left also thinks of racism in terms of intent. But they think that outcome implies intent. That is the real difference, IMO.

[thosakwe]

Intent and impact are not always the same.

[gammateam]

and academics think of it as power imbalance of any majority power, separate from the census majority and minorities

and colloquially nobody thinks of it the same way, with themselves always exempt from being racist until convinced that their 'normal behavior' is considered racist and this does not change their view of their normal behavior 'so be it'

this is a challenge. at this point the word itself is polluted.