War Handwavium

There’s a meme going around over here:
http://privilegedenyingdude.tumblr.com/
about a “Privilege Denying Dude”.

(edited to add: Looks like the site is permanently down due to copyright violation with the original image. See comment #1 and #2)

It consists of the same image of some (apparently straight) white male, all with different captions on the picture. The captions are supposed to be the straight white male denying that he has privilege. The site apparently is set up so that anyone can create an image/caption and submit it to the site. I’m not sure if there is any sort of “approval” process or if the person just rubber stamps pretty much anything. But if you read through the archives of all the captions people have created that are their attempts to show how a straight, white male denies his privilege, one thing becomes abundantly clear:

(edited to add: Copyright issue with original image (see comment #2) caused me to composite the head of Lenin on top of the original image.)

For those wanting a full explanation of what privilege means, they can go here:

http://www.warhw.com/equality-waterline/

Privilege was a term coined by Peggy McIntosh back in 1988 in her paper “The Invisible Knapsack” to describe something fairly specific: A benefit that members of a dominant class recieve that lifts them above the equality waterline and that benefit comes as a result of some form of discrimination.

To be a “privilege”, you have to have

(1) Discrimination

(2) Benefit to the dominant class that is above the equality waterline as a result of that discrimination

If you don’t have discrimination and a benefit that lifts the dominant class above the equality waterline, it isn’t privilege.

If you read through the archives of the “Privilege Denying Dude”, what you find are captions that are encapsulating a number of different concepts, most of which are NOT privilege. I went through the archives and found 217 captions and then sorted them into various categories.

Of all those captions, I didn’t find a single one that actually called out something specific that fit the above definition of privilege. Most of the captions were bringing up issues of straightforward discrimination where the dominant group was at the equality waterline, so there was no privilege that would go away once equal rights was achieved. In other words, they point to detrimental discrimination, rather than privilege-producing discrimination.

Some examples of captions that point to detrimental discrimination:

“What is wrong with just a civil union?” (In states where gay marriage is recognized, the benefits of heterosexual married couples did not go down as a result.)

“I like gays. As long as they don’t hit on me.” (Homophobia, certainly, but no benefit to the privileged class of all straight people, so not “privilege”.)

“I’m not a bigot. I’m protecting America from invading Muslims.” (Fear-based religious bigotry. But again, no benefit to the privileged class of all non-muslims or all Christians, so not privilege.)

Going through all the captions and trying to categorize them, I came up with several different ideas, none of which mean “privilege” as Peggy McIntosh defined it.

As mentioned before, the largest category was detrimental discrimination. Discrimination where the dominant class is operating at the equality waterline, so there is no privileged benefit coming from the discrimination.

Other categories of captions include:

(2) Apathy.

(3) The straight white male denying they are homophobic, racist, or sexist.

(4) The “privilege denying dude” saying something hypocritical. Usually PDD denies they are prejudiced, and then says something prejudiced.

(5) complete non-sequitors.

(6) Actual instances of reverse discrimination

Some more details of these categories and some examples of captions that fit in them:

(2) Apathy. THe caption shows the privilege denying dude not discriminating against some class and not recieving some benefit above the equality waterline as a result of soem discrimination, but rather demonstrates that the dude is apathetic towards people in minority classes.

While this is not nice behavior, it isn’t actually a demonstration of privilege in any way, shape or form.

Captions that fit the category of “apathy”: “Your concerns are invalid. Mine are not.” (A blatant outcome of apathy.) “I would be flattered, if someone randomly hit on my on the street without my consent.” (The dude does not get what it’s like to be in the shoes of a woman harrased by men.) “I know what its like to live in poverty. I’m a grad student.” (The dude does not get what it’s like to be in the shoes of someone truly poor.)

Not getting what someone else’s life experience is like is a lack of empathy. An inability to identify with someone else. Willfully maintaining that your experience is the only experience is one form of apathy. So is willfully refusing to understand someone else’s experience.

Basically, these captions of Apathy can be summed up as Ebenezer’s question “Are there no workhouses? No prisons?” And while Ebeneezer is fairly well universally regarded as, well, a Scrooge, the captions don’t actually point to Privilege.

(3) The Straight, White, Male dude, denying that they are homophobic, racist, or sexist, or similar. If a conversation actually gets to the point where the member of the dominant class is swearing up and down that they do not have the heart and soul of a racist, something has gone wrong with the conversation.

I refer to Jay Smooth’s excellent video post about how to tell someone they sound racist:

http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html

His point is to focus on what the person SAID or DID that was prejudice, and not let the conversation drift over into what kind of person they ARE.

Interestingly enough, once someone starts denying that they ARE a racist or bigot, the response is very often “That is insufficient evidence to prove your innocence”. At which point, the conversation has turned into “prove to me you are not a racist” rather than focusing on the thing the person said or did that was racist. The captions by the Privilege Denying Dude for category (3) include the following:

“I’m a gay white male. I don’t have privilege.” (The word “privilege” is in the caption, but no actual privilege is mentioned. If the person has privilege, be specific about what that privilege is, what benefit they get above teh equality waterline as a result of discrimination.)

“Cultural appropriation? I’m 1/64th Cherokee Indian on my mother’s side.” (This is “I am not a racist” at its basic. If the person did something that qualifies as cultural appropriation, refocus the conversation on that specific behavior. But again, no privilege is shown here.)

“Racist? My best friend’s hairdresser’s boyfriend’s gardner is African-American.” (If they did or said something racist, keep the conversation focused on that. But again, this caption does not demonstrate anything that fits the definition of “privilege”.)

(4) The Privilege Denying Dude saying something hypocritical. This is often the PDD saying they’re not prejudiced, and then saying something prejudiced. Often this is a subset of (3) denying they are prejudiced, but sometimes its just demonstrating the PDD saying something logically inconsistent. Examples:

“Why do gays have to flaunt their sexuality? ‘Scuse me, gotta kiss my girlfriend goodbye.”

“The hibaj is oppressive, it takes away a Muslim woman’s choice to wear what she wants. Ban it.”

“She slept with 3 guys from our frat. What a slut. Dude, you slept with the entire pledge class? Pound it, bro!”

Hypocritical statements like the ones above show the PDD being logically inconsistent, which casts doubts on their argument. But it doesn’t actually demonstrate any Privilege.

(5) Instances of logical non-sequitors. Red herrings. The PDD caption has absolutely nothing to do with privilege, and might not even have anything to do with discrimination.

My favorite example of a “Privilege Denying Dude” caption that has absolutely nothing to do with privilege or discrimination is this one:

“It’s snowing in august. Global warming doesn’t exist.”

The fact that people are using this as an example of some dude showing privilege indicates that privilege has become meaningless as a vocabulary term. In this case, the word doesn’t mean anything more specific than “something I disagree with” or “things that are bad”.

To be talking about privilege, you have to talk about something that involves discrimination against some class of people and this discrimination creates some benefit to the dominant class that puts them at an advantage above the equality waterline. If there is no discrimination and there is no benefit that lifts the dominant class above the equality waterline, surprise, it isn’t privilege.

Last but not least, we have category (6), examples of reverse discrimination.

The nearly perfect example of reverse discrimination in the caption of the Privilege Denying Dude is the caption that said: “I’m not racist for not dating minorities. I can’t help who I’m attracted to.”

Think about this for a moment. The standard homophobic response is to say that gays have a choice to date people of the opposite sex, but that they CHOOSE to be attracted to people of the same sex. The above PDD caption is condemning the White Privilege Denying Dude for only dating white people, as if he has a choice in who he is attracted to.

If you get to make a white male “wrong” for only being attracted to white females, then how do you explain to congress that they shouldn’t make laws telling gays that they are wrong for being attracted to the people they’re attracted to?

If you want to keep government from legislating what goes on in your bedroom, consistency would require you refrain from judging what others do in their bedrooms.

Another caption that is an example of reverse discrimination: “I can’t be homophobic. I love lesbian porn.” This is partly (3) denying they’re prejudice, which indicates the conversation has gotten off track and should focus on what homophobic thing that person said or did.

But when straight, white, male dude says “I can’t be (homophobic, racist,sexist) because I do (some action they view as an outcome of having non-discriminatory beliefs)”, rather than putting the conversation back on track of whatever specific prejudice thing the person said or did, the response is often “That doesn’t prove you’re not (homophobic, racist, sexist).” Making the conversation even more about who they ARE rather than what they DID.

Another caption that reflects reverse discrimination: “My greatest fear, is not having a dick.” Again, think about this for a moment. What happens if you flipped it around and said it about someone who is in a minority group such as a trans-gender person. Transgender people have one physical anatomy, but mentally have a gender identity that is opposite of what their physical anatomy is. A trans-phobic person might dismiss a person with female anatomy and male gender identity as crazy for wanting to change their anatomy. Why exactly would you make someone wrong for wanting to *keep* their anatomy?

The captions in this last category aren’t showing privilege, but actually are showign a form of reverse discrimination.

Of the 217 total captions in the Privilege Denying Dude archives, not one caption pointed to a benefit that lifted the dominatant group above teh equality waterline as a result of discrimination. By and large, most captions pointed to detrimental discrimination, discrimination where the dominant group operated at the equality waterline and discrimination pushed the minority group under the equality waterline. Discrimination, yes. Privilege, no.

If the word “privilege” was being expanded from meaning “privilege” which is a subset of discrimination, to meaning the superset of all discrimination, then I’d say stop using “privilege” and just use the word “discrimination”.

But the Privilege Denying Dude meme goes much further than that. The captions show that people use “privilege” to mean “apathy” (which is something completely different), “denying prejudice” (which means the conversation is about what kind of person they ARE ratehr than what they said or did, and “hypocritical positions” (which are nothing more than logical inconsistencies about anything, which might have nothing to do with privilege or discrimination). These are all things that many would describe as “bad” but aren’t actually meeting the definition of “privilege”. At its worst, the captions show people using “privilege” in a way that reveals their own prejudice against members of the dominant class, and use “privilege” as a cover for their prejudice.

If the term “privilege” can actually be used to mean all these different things, then the Humpty Dumpty’s who use it to mean whatever they want it to mean have succeeded in rendering the term meaningless.

Many discussions of bias and discrimination fail because of a lack of awareness of the distiction between being and doing. Jay Smooth pointed out long ago to focus on the bias reflected on what a person says and does rather than attempting to say that the person IS a bigot. Focus on what they say/do, avoid commenting on who they ARE.

There has been a little bit of a flap on the internet because Charlie Stross ranted about a bunch of things he doesn’t lime about SteamPunk as a genre. This was essentially a behavior based complaint, in the form of ‘I don’t like steampunk stories that do this or do that.’ One complaint was that a lot of steampunk glosses over how brutal the world was during the industrial evolution, his much discrimination there was, and how steampunk glosses over that brutality. Basically the way i complain about how military fiction glossed over the realities of war, Stross was complaining about how a lot of steampunk glosses over the realities of the time era it places its stories in.

Stross’s rant generated somewhat of a kerfuffle. I am not going to attempt to categorize all the reasons people were disagreeing with Stross, but I do want to point out anecdotal evidence about one complaint I saw. Someone accused Charlie Stross of secretly writing his rant agai.st steampunk because the accuser assumed steampunk had more female authors than science fiction, and Stross was really trying to squeeze out female competition.

Stross wrote a rant saying he didn’t like what steampunk stories DO. Someone turned around and accused him of BEING sexist.

The flip side of this is that while it has become less socially acceptable to prejudge someone based on who they are (black, female, gay), there seems to be more social acceptance to judge a person on what they do.

Bigots might try to take their prejudice about who people ARE and attempt to repackage it as if it’s purely based on behavior. A racist might try to say that blacks are statistically more likely to be stopped by police as an attempt to say clacks behave differently (completely disregarding the existence of systemic racial profiling by police). Misogynysts might try to repackage their prejudice against who women ARE and try to cast it under the shadow of something women DO. Homophobed might try to claim their resistance to gay marriage has moving to do with who gay people are, but rather try to cast it in terms of something behavioral based. I recently saw someone attempt to justify opposition to gay marriage by attempting to redefine marriage as something really only for people intending to procreate children, and since gays can’t procreate in what would be their spouse, then they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

And it occurred to me that this is two different sides of the same failure coin.

People fighting discrimination sometimes mistakenly takes what some does and turns it into a pro.ouncement of the kind of person they are.

And sometimes people try to take their discrimination based on who people ARE and try to camoflage or justify it as judging someone on what they DO.

In both situations, it’s a problem of failing to distinguish the fundamental difference between doing and being.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head_n_773857.html

A supporter of the party whose slogan is essentially “Don’t Tread on Me” stomps on the head of a woman.

Because, lets face it, hasty generalizations are easier.
Because it’s no skin off my nose.
Because I am really too scared to think right now.
Because I slept through history class and skipped out of that stupid diversity class.
Because that’s what fear and bigotry lead to.

(Note, these are some captions for a cartoon I’m thinking about. Also need to find a good image to go with it.)

So, first, I feel the need to try and categorize what this post is about, and thereby attempt to explain what it is not about.

Persuasive -> To induce someone to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty

(in)effectiveness -> able to produce the desired effect (or not)

privilege -> A term used in discussions of inequality to point to people who are NOT in the minority group.

guiltbattery -> trying to persuade people to do something you want by making them feel gulity.

That’s the first cut of what I’m talking about.

The second cut would be to say that I understand the intentions and connotations of the term “privilege” as it relates to discrimination. If Alice has $5 and Bob has $105, we could describe that situation one of several ways. We could say Alice is at a $100 disadvantage to Bob. Or we could say that Bob has a $100 advantage over Alice. In discussions of discrimination, historically, the focus of the language has been on the disadvantages of the minority group. The American Civil War was couched in language of fighting slavery, rather than focusing on how whites had various advantages over blacks.

More recently, discusstions of discrimination have introduced the term “privilege” to take the differences between two groups (white and black, for example) and shift the focus to the advantaged group. For example, studies repeatedly show that American police commit racial profiling, stopping people of color far out of proportion to whites. We could say that people of color are at a disadvantage of racial profiling. Or we could say that whites enjoy the advantage of not having to worry about being pulled over by the cops simply because of their skin color.

All of this language is meant to point to the DIFFERENCE between the way two groups are treated. And I think the goal for most people talking about this is to remove that difference so that the two groups are treated EQUALLY.

I think one of the goals of using the term “privilege” is to get white people to see things from a minority’s point of view. A white person isn’t going to experience racial profiling. So a white person might say something ignorant like “I haven’t experienced racial profiling, so you’ll have to prove to me it exists”. And then one response to that ignorance has been to tell the white person the reason they haven’t experienced it is because they are white, that they have an advantage over blacks that means they don’t have to worry about being racially profiled, etc.

The goal of “privilege” seems to focus on fighting ignorance. Many people live life as “out of sight, out of mind”, and privilege is a way of trying to get someone’s attention on a problem that they will never directly experience. White people have never suffered racial profiling in America. So, white people might not think its a problem needing fixing. So, often times, the first step is getting white people to realize that there is a problem that minorites have been dealing with all their lives.

The problem I keep seeing though is two-fold. First, people using the term “privilege” seem to be steadfast in their refusal to acknowlege the negative connotation packed into the term. The etymology of “privilege” is from Latin prvilgium, a law affecting one person (prvus, single, alone, lg-, law).

If Alice has $5 and Bob has $105, there is a $100 DIFFERENCE between the two. We could say that Alice is at a $100 disadvantage under Bob. Or we could say Bob has a $100 advantage over Alice. But the end goal of the conversation around discrimination is to achieve equality. Or at least that’s why I’m in it. And when we discuss the end result of equality, if Bob has $105 because of privilege, then that means when everyone has equality, that Bob will end up with something like $90.

The etymology of privilege is about laws that put individuals above the rest of the people. That those people are at an advantage above the “equality” waterline. And that if you remove that “privilege”, then the people who had privilege will metaphorically sink to stand equally alongside the rest of the population.

People using the term “privilege” will often swear up and down that this is not their intention and that this is not the meaning of the word as THEY use it. But a word doesn’t mean only what the speaker wants it to mean. A word means what its entire history brings along with it. And privilege is in part about laws the lift one group above the rest.

The problem is that if you were to achieve equality with regards to something like racial profiling, then the way white people in America don’t have to worry about being stopped by the police because of their skin color? That would be how everyone would live. It wouldn’t mean that white people would have to start worrying a little bit about being racially profiled. It would mean that whites wouldn’t change, and people of color could stop worrying about it.

Using the water metaphor, if Alice is up to her neck in water, and Bob is nice and dry in a boat, the issue is a question of whether the end result is that Alice gets to be nice and dry in her own boat, or whether Bob has to get out of his boat and everyone has to float with life preservers on.

If Alice has $5 and Bob has $105, would the goal be that Alice and Bob both have $105? Or is the goal that Alice and Bob both have $90, because Bob really was enjoying a $15 advantage above and beyond what was “equal for all”?

Put simply, where is the “waterline” of equality?

My experience has been that it is impossible to ask this question to anyone who is using the term “privilege”.

Is the waterline of equality that everyone worry a little bit about systemic racial profiling by the police?

God, I hope not.

But if “privilege” has in its etymology laws designed to put individuals above the rest, then that’s exactly what privilege means.

Just because you say that’s not how you’re using the word doesn’t mean that the etymological baggage packed into the word suddenly goes away.

If one class has privilege over everyone else, then the waterline of equality is below that class.

If Alice has $5 and Bob has $105 because Bob has privilege, then the waterline of equality is somewhere less than $105.

And I don’t subscribe to that notion of equality. I’m more of a “rising tide lifts all boats” kind of person. I don’t think that equality is a zero sum game. I think that it is possible to bring everyone up to $105, to bring everyone up so that they’re nice and dry in their own boat.

Some time ago, I was having a discussing with someone who kept using the term “privilege” in what I perceived to be a negative way. I told him that I got the impression that he was using privilege to make people feel guilty. More specifically, I said he was using privilege as a “guiltbat”, hitting people over their heads with it. He replied that sometimes people need to feel guilty.

Why would Bob need to feel guilty for having $105 unless the waterline of equality is below $105?

From what I could surmise from this person’s guiltbattery was that he wanted to spur people in the privileged class to action to help support the cause of equality.

He wanted to persuade people to get off their asses and do something about discrimination in the world.

OK. I’m cool with that goal.

The problem I was having was that I questioned the effectiveness of privilege guiltbattery as a tool of persuasion. And I especially had an issue with privilege guiltbattery if it camed packed with the assumption that Bob needed to give up some money for there to be equality. That Bob needed to worry about systemic racial profiling by the police.

I don’t think that’s really what racial equality with regards to systemic police behaviour should have as a goal.

Seriously.

Some people using “privilege” are using it in a way that implies Bob can keep his $105 and they just want to bring Alice up to $105. But even if the speaker is using it that way, the listener may hear it in terms of the words full etymology and history. Charlie talks about “privilege” without guiltbattery, but Bob might hear Charlie’s words and take them to mean his $105 is above and beyond what equality would support.

Privilege connotes that the person with privilege is above the waterline of equality.

It may be that the speaker is trying to use it with the denotation of pointing out the difference, but the listener doesn’t have to hear it that way, because that’s not the only meaning of privilege.

And this problem gets exacerbated because there really are some individuals out there who want to use “privilege” as a guiltbat.

Which means that if your goal for discussing the differences between two classes of people by using the term “privilege” is to achieve equality by persuading the un-discriminated-against-class of people to fight for equality, then I question the effectiveness of that technique of persuasion.

The guy who told me that sometimes people need to feel guilty, he didn’t persuade me to help his cause.

It seems that the problem of the terminology of “privilege” is that, at least thus far, it has been used to describe the difference between two classes without talking about the final goal. So, the final goal is then left to the different speakers. And some speakers may approach it with a “rising tide lifts all boats” approach, but some people are approaching it with a “you need to feel guilty about your status” approach.

If Alice has $5 and Bob has $105, there is a $100 difference between the two. We could say that Alice is at a $100 disadvantage under Bob. We could say Bob has a $100 advantage over Alice. But none of those statements actually say what the speaker’s vision of equality looks like. And while some may view equality as everyone having $105 or more, others may be viewing Bob as needing to be taken down a notch.

Talking about “privilege” with regards to discrimination without talking about where the waterline of equality is means that each speaker and each listener may have different ideas about where the other person envisions the waterline to be at. And while it is possible to use “privilege” to denote nothing more than “difference”, it is also possible to hear the term “privilege” and interpret it to mean that those at an advantage will have to come down a notch for real equality to be achieved.

Talking about privilege without awareness of where the waterline of equality is proposed by the language is foolish.

This mosque business is little more than a bunch of morons trying to say “My god is better than your god.” And then a bunch of gutless politicians chasing the mob saying “Wait! I can lead you there!”

Jon Stewart pretty much sums up all the idiocy here.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Favorite bit: Should Catholics build a church next to a school ground?

Really, I do think it’s too soon.

If Obama continues on this current path, he is on track to become the biggest disappointment of an entire generation.

I kept having to check the date on this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

to make sure it wasn’t published April 1.

The gist of it is that the US government say they discovered about a Trillion dollars worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan. There is so much valuable minerals there that Afghanistan could turn into the biggest mining center in the world.

On some level, I suppose this shouldn’t be entirely unexpected. Afghanistan is, on one level, just a bunch of rocks, so it shouldn’t be too surprising that some of them are valuable.

What’s worrysome is how the US government seems to be reacting to this find. They seem to be under the impression that money, for lack of a better word, is good, money is right, and that money will solve all your problems, whatever they might be. They act as if winning the lottery is a guaranteed good thing.

And I just thought I’d point out that about a third of all lottery winners declare bankruptcy within five years.

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=13120

I’d also point out that one country famous for its mineral deposits is South Africa and much of those riches helped keep the unjust apartheid system in place there. The Shah ruled Iran from 1953 to 1979 while his country was one of the biggest oil producers in the world. The Shah’s government was also considered one of the most cruel governments in the world. His secret police snatched people off the street and might torture a person for years without any kind of due process.

Meanwhile power in Afghanistan is currently split between a weak and ineffectual central government that may very well win the award for “Most Corrupt 2001-2011″ on one side, numerous local warlords who make all their money growing opium on another side, and a group of religiously motivated war lords also known as the Taliban on the third side.

Throw a trillion dollar lottery ticket into that totally dysfunctional family and, really, what could possibly go wrong?

There are two main problems associated with the central government in Afghanistan: It is totally corrupt and it is totally useless.

One of the reasons the locals do not support the central government is simply because supporting the central government offers them nothing in return. The government is too poor and ineffectual to provide infrastructure like roads, schools, medical care, what have you. And on top of that, the central government is corrupt, so supporting them means you’ve got to support a corrupt system. So most locals just keep to their own.

A trillion dollar lottery ticket could change at least one part of the dynamic. It could give the central government enough cash that they could start paying for infrastructure throughout the rest of the country. Roads. Schools. Hospitals. Water. What have you.

The problem though is that for that to happen, you’ve got to get rid of the corruption in the central government. If you don’t, what’s more likely to happen is that the locals will see a corrupt central government taking an unfair piece of the pie to enrich themselves, and the locals might just decide to try and take it back.

Before, there really wasn’t anything to fight over. Most warlords simply wanted to maintain whatever power they had, and they funded their military by growing opium.

Now, there’s a huge chunk of money to fight over, and apparently its spread throughought several different regions of Afghanistan, meaning the locals aren’t going to be too happy if they see the central government come in, take all their minerals and keep the money for themselves.

At which point, the warlords might decide there’s something worth fighting over.

I would hope that the US government sees that giving a Trillion dollar lottery ticket to such a dysfunctional family as Afghanistan may only make things much worse.

And since the central government is seen as a puppet of the US, any abuses and misuses committed by the central government over this money will be seen as abuse and misuse by the US.

We can either let a corrupt government abuse its power and take all the wealth for itself while screwing the locals and possibly have an Afghanistan Revolution like the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that overthrew the Shah, or we can clean up our puppet government in Afghanistan and maybe, just maybe, this wealth will transform Afghanistan into a peaceful family.

\

Where’s the Invisible Hand of Capitalism to clean up this mess?

Above is a good video called “How to tell people they sound racist” by Jay Smooth. You can see his thread about it here:

http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html

I like it because it makes an important distinction between dealing with what someone said and dealing with their internal motivations. The lesson of the video is that it’s far easier to say “That thing you said about the watermelon was racist” than it is to say “You have the heart and soul of a racist”. Hearts and souls are hard to measure. Words are a little bit easier.

This post is sort of in that same spirit of choosing how to fight for equality by choosing tactics that are easier to win and avoiding tactics that get you bogged down into a quagmire with no exit strategy other than to shut down the thread.

The quagmire comes when you say “It sounds to me like you’re saying” (or some variation) and then insert the most extreme discrimitory thing that you can imagine, something so evil that it would make Darth Vader pause, before he’d remind himself of how his poor mother was a slave and murdered by sand people, and then choke hold someone.

“It sounds to me” is really nothing more than a round about, back door approach, to saying “I think you’re a racist” but trying to soften it and dilute it by saying “it sounds that way to me”. What you’re saying is just an indirect way of saying “It is my opinion that you are a racist”. And as Jay Smooth points out in his video, saying “you’re a racist” is a whole lot more likely to derail than dealing with specificaly what the person actually said.

Focus on what they said, not on what you think they said or what you want to interpret them as having said. And for pete’s sake, don’t invent quotes attributed to the person if they didn’t actually say it. Focus on their actual words.

Part of what is behind “it seems to me that you’re saying (insert horrible evil)” is an assumption of bad faith, that the person’s words or actions must have behind them the worst possible intentions of anyone who ever said those same words or did those same actions.

But, for example, not every cop who arrests a black man is racist. So, you cannot take one phrase/action and assume the worst intent of anyone who has ever said/done that.

I’m not saying you have to assume good faith either. You don’t have to poly-anna their intentions. It’s best to avoid intentions altogether. But definitely don’t take their words or actions and find the worst possible intention behind them and then try to weasel a round about accusation about their intents by couching it in “It seems to me that you’re saying (evil)”, when all you’re really doing is saying “It is my personal opinion that you’re a racist”.

“It seems to me that you’re a racist” is just one level of indirection above what Jay Smooth’s admonition to avoid saying “you’re a racist”.

“Racists do this. You’re doing this. You must be a racist. Wait, Jay Smooth told me not to say that. It sounds to me like you’re saying you want to be a racist. Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket.”

Uhm. No.

I would suggest not making any assumptions about intent at all. Don’t assume good faith. Don’t assume bad faith. Instead of “It seems to me that you’re saying (evil)”, what you might consider doing is saying something along the lines of this:

“Racists have used this phrase, or done this action, as a way to commit camouflaged racism. They want to continue to be racists, so they find indirect ways of doing and saying racist things. The thing you just said/did is one of those things they do/say as camoflaged racism. When you do/say this thing, whether you intend it to be racist or not, it will end up hurting some people because racists say/do that exact same thing to hurt people.”

This is a bit of a mouthful, but it’s a hell of a lot shorter than a flamewar.

Another way some people try to defend assuming bad faith is by asserting “The meaning of your communication is the response you get.” Or some variation thereof. How it gets applied in a totally derailed flamewar is this: “Your communication hurt me, you must have meant to hurt me.”

But that’s taking things all the way back to intent again. And focusing the conversation on intent is the quagmire that Jay Smooth warns about. “You *are* a racist.” “You *meant* to hurt me.” These are comments about the person’s soul. And they’ll derail it in a heartbeat.

The part that is true about that whole “the meaning of your communication is the response you get” concept is how you felt about the communication.

And for pete’s sake, don’t start saying “It *feels* like you’re saying (evil)”. Speaking truthfully about your feelings would mean saying something like “that hurt” or “that makes me sad” and so on. Talking about feelings doesn’t mean “I felt like you meant to hurt me” is now an acceptable way to indirectly make accusations of intent. No. You know the truth about *your* feelings, you know your soul, you know your heart. Report it. But keep the report to your heart, your soul, your feelings. Don’t say “now that we’re talking about feelings, let me say what I feel your intentions were.”

If you’re in a conversation and someone says/does something that lands as racists or sexists or whatever, it’s going to hurt. And if you want to hold the person accountable for what they said or did, then let them know the effects of their words and actions. Their intent becomes irrelevant.

“That hurt. Racists use those words/actions to hurt people. Regardless of what your intentions were, when you use those words/actions, you will end up hurting people who have had to deal with racism.”

Give it a try.