Off-topic: Race.

[child-of-fae]

i'm white.
if you want to go into ancestry it's 1/2 irish (from mom and dad) 1/4 polish (dad) 1/8 slovakian (mom) 1/8 croatian (mom)

however whenever i talk to my straight up polish or russian implant friends they dislike using the term white to describe themselves. a phrase i often hear is "I'm not "White" I'm Eastern European" and some of them describe me as a mix of white/eastern european. (although i had always thought [based on what i was taught in ap euro] that it was because historically in europe the divisions weren't necessarily white/black/asian/etc but more along the lines of slavic/germanic/scandinvian/etc. it was tied more to where your geographic ancestry was from instead of the color of your skin [ignoring the fact that skin color is more or less dependent on your geographic genetic makeup with more sun = more melatonin = darker skin]) so, yeah, just something i've always found interesting.

however the city where i live used to be (when mom was growing up here) straight up almost completely irish or italian catholics. now it's a huge mix of everything.

we still have a fucking HUGE polish population though, some here for a couple generations and some tranplants. and if you speak polish, then shit you have met every polish-speaking person your age in this city and all of the surrounding towns/cities not to mention a good chunk of the noes from other counties even. (a bit of an exaggeration, but i have polish froends who live over an hour away who know each other simply because they have polish speaking friends in common)

[Zanosuke Kurosaki]

People don't assume that you're incapable of technical skills

This is starting to go away now. In the last ten years, I have seen the number of women taking technically-aimed courses going up by an amount that just makes me smile (because it's a nice change from the whole "only socially-inept men do technical stuff".)

And reading through the post you linked, Embre. It's quite good. I'm just not always sure where she's being serious, and when she's shooting for "ironical". XD

[Valerie]

I'll give you the insignificant part relative to other problems concerning ethnicity so let's talk about problems that are actually significant relative to racism. Problems such as dwindling biodiversity and the fact that people are using 1.5 earths worth of renewable resources every year. Problems such as the lack of a nationalized medical database, which would be a huge boon to not only receiving care but could be used for long term empirical studies of care. Yet the national attention is eaten up with horseshit just like this. Scalzi writing racist articles isn't helping any real problem and even if it were aimed at a real problem, two wrongs don't make a right.

Significant to whom?

You're white. Empty taxicabs don't pass you by because of your skin color. The cops don't target you for extra attention because of your skin color. A jury is less likely to convict you of a crime, and if you were you'd be less likely to get the death penalty. Your moving into a neighborhood isn't deemed to lower property values. Suburbs don't resist public transit for fear that you might visit.

You're male. You don't walk around with a heightened sense of fear. People don't assume that you're incapable of technical skills, or avoid hiring you because you might get pregnant.

The problems you mention are significant. So is black poverty and crappy schools blacks have access to and a huge fraction of black men being in prison or former convicts (and thus, in many states, disenfranchised). So is women's access to birth control and abortion and equal paying jobs and being able to accuse a rapist without being dragged through the mud and told she was asking for it.

Will you join my harem? <3

[mindstalk]

People don't assume that you're incapable of technical skills

This is starting to go away now. In the last ten years, I have seen the number of women taking technically-aimed courses going up by an amount that just makes me smile (because it's a nice change from the whole "only socially-inept men do technical stuff".)

And reading through the post you linked, Embre. It's quite good. I'm just not always sure where she's being serious, and when she's shooting for "ironical". XD

And I know people pushing women and Python teaching here in Boston.

OTOH, I also know a woman who at a hacker thing got asked if she was in her company's marketing department. Cuz, y'know, a well-dressed girl at a hacker event would have to be a marketer or someone's girlfriend, not a hacker...

[FlyingFish]

Significant to whom?

Something that I've been thinking about since you posed this question. We are more likely to notice racism, and to consider it "significant", when we are its targets (and less likely when it targets someone else). That itself is not (usually) racist; that's just human awareness. You don't notice a car crash if it occurs across town from where you live, but you probably notice it if you drive by it, and you sure as hell notice it if you're in one of the cars involved. And if there happen to be multiple accidents at once, you focus on the one closest to you.

Hence Otaking zeroing in on potentially hostile opinions of white people in that blog article. That's the fender bender that messed up his car and gave him whiplash, and unless other drivers are being visibly carted off in an ambulance, he's naturally going to assume his own injuries are the most serious, the most significant, because those are the ones he feels. While accidents he only hears about second or third-hand just don't naturally get the same reaction.

I admit that I was not nearly as conscious of subtle racism against Mexican Americans until I started dating one. Not because it wasn't there before (it was, and is, although hardly rampantly), but because every time it happens I am guaranteed to hear a first-hand account of it (and get indignant that someone treated her so!) Would I have known that a professor accused her of cheating because she, the sole Latina in the class, got the best exam score, had she not fumed about it to me? Of course not. And would she have told me if I were a stranger, or mild acquaintance? Again, of course not. And the resulting ignorance would not have been my fault had I dated someone else, but neither could I declare with authority that "oh, that sort of thing never happens anymore" when I never had the opportunity to learn otherwise, much less have "that sort of thing" dropped in my lap.

This goes far beyond racism and bigotry, which is active distrust of those Not Like Us. This is a combination of proximity, general empathy, and (at bare minimum) conscious awareness of the state of things.

[mindstalk]

Iseul looks eager to me, not sad.

[Artemisia]

OK...you know that Vermont elects its governors every two years, right?

Well, Randy Brock is running for governor. He is a Republican. It took me three months to realize that he's Black. I'm not joking here. Thing is, no one mentioned it. No one has been wondering if a Black man could be elected Governor of Vermont. No one has questioned the ability of this state to deal with that. Literally, no one has made a fuss about Brock being Black.

This is the SECOND time I've seen this in my state. We had a Black woman running for Mayor of Burlington. She was a long shot, but no one wondered if she was going to lose because she was Black, but rather, no one thought she'd win because she was running as an Independent. VT has three major parties, btw, but Democrats tend to win elections right now, so Brock is not likely to win for two reasons- first, we don't tend to elect out incumbents unless they really, really mess up, and two, the GOP is in pretty deep shit right now over some of the stuff the House Minority Leader pulled last session.

However, the GOP and the Progressives have just enough votes to mean that the Dems can't run roughshod over everything. Then again, the Dems know that if they did, they would be voted out next election.

Oh, and since 1961, not a single incumbent has lost reelection for Governor; however, we've had one die in office. In fact, it may be all the way back to the Civil War before we've had anyone actually defeated in an election.

[Valerie]

Significant to whom?

Something that I've been thinking about since you posed this question. We are more likely to notice racism, and to consider it "significant", when we are its targets (and less likely when it targets someone else). That itself is not (usually) racist; that's just human awareness. You don't notice a car crash if it occurs across town from where you live, but you probably notice it if you drive by it, and you sure as hell notice it if you're in one of the cars involved. And if there happen to be multiple accidents at once, you focus on the one closest to you.

Hence Otaking zeroing in on potentially hostile opinions of white people in that blog article. That's the fender bender that messed up his car and gave him whiplash, and unless other drivers are being visibly carted off in an ambulance, he's naturally going to assume his own injuries are the most serious, the most significant, because those are the ones he feels. While accidents he only hears about second or third-hand just don't naturally get the same reaction.

I admit that I was not nearly as conscious of subtle racism against Mexican Americans until I started dating one. Not because it wasn't there before (it was, and is, although hardly rampantly), but because every time it happens I am guaranteed to hear a first-hand account of it (and get indignant that someone treated her so!) Would I have known that a professor accused her of cheating because she, the sole Latina in the class, got the best exam score, had she not fumed about it to me? Of course not. And would she have told me if I were a stranger, or mild acquaintance? Again, of course not. And the resulting ignorance would not have been my fault had I dated someone else, but neither could I declare with authority that "oh, that sort of thing never happens anymore" when I never had the opportunity to learn otherwise, much less have "that sort of thing" dropped in my lap.

This goes far beyond racism and bigotry, which is active distrust of those Not Like Us. This is a combination of proximity, general empathy, and (at bare minimum) conscious awareness of the state of things.

I get where you're coming from. In a moment, without thinking about it, we'll feel the thing that hurts us more than the thing that hurts another person, and we'll assume the damage to be greater because it happened to us. When someone makes a joke about a guy hitting his girlfriend, it pisses me off. When someone makes a joke about a girl hitting her boyfriend, I think it's funny, because it's a joke.

That's the thing, though. That's only the instant reaction. Because then I stop and think, "Wait, that isn't funny, because it wouldn't be funny the other way."

So as far as instant reactions go, it's perfectly normal. It's just a human flaw. It's an evolutionary thing. We watch out for ourselves. But we do have the ability to think, and to realize that we were wrong about certain things.

I'm white and female.

If you ask me whether women have it harder than men, I will say yes, because I have looked over the facts and it does look to be that way, objectively. We make less money, we're attacked more often, we aren't allowed the same reproductive choices, etc. Men do have their problems (child custody, rigid views on masculinity, not taken seriously as victims), and I recognize that. But if you ask me to weigh the two, my gut reaction is "women have it harder," because I am a woman, and my informed reaction is the same after reviewing the information available (rape statistics, income, etc.).

If you ask me whether black people have it harder than white people, I will say yes. Because of the same thing, because I thought about it instead of going with my gut reaction. There are some things that happen to white people that are unfair. There are certain words we can't say without people getting mad, even though other races can say them. There are certain scholarships and such that we can't get because race is a factor. And that's unfair, and it sucks, and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't. But black people have a shorter average lifespan, black people are more likely to be born into poverty, black people are more likely to be accused of crimes and generally mistrusted, black people usually can't afford decent education (which is actually why they have a better shot at those scholarships I mentioned), etc. Black people have a harder time than white people. And the fact that I am white does not change my view on that.

What I'm trying to say is, if a person can't get past zir gut reaction, zie might need to work on a few things.

[Lia S]

I would just point at Valerie's signature, but then someone in the far future might read this post and be confused because of it saying something else than I would be pointing at. So.

Valerie is right. As usual.

[Corneel]

Significant to whom?

Something that I've been thinking about since you posed this question. We are more likely to notice racism, and to consider it "significant", when we are its targets (and less likely when it targets someone else). That itself is not (usually) racist; that's just human awareness. You don't notice a car crash if it occurs across town from where you live, but you probably notice it if you drive by it, and you sure as hell notice it if you're in one of the cars involved. And if there happen to be multiple accidents at once, you focus on the one closest to you.

Hence Otaking zeroing in on potentially hostile opinions of white people in that blog article. That's the fender bender that messed up his car and gave him whiplash, and unless other drivers are being visibly carted off in an ambulance, he's naturally going to assume his own injuries are the most serious, the most significant, because those are the ones he feels. While accidents he only hears about second or third-hand just don't naturally get the same reaction.

I admit that I was not nearly as conscious of subtle racism against Mexican Americans until I started dating one. Not because it wasn't there before (it was, and is, although hardly rampantly), but because every time it happens I am guaranteed to hear a first-hand account of it (and get indignant that someone treated her so!) Would I have known that a professor accused her of cheating because she, the sole Latina in the class, got the best exam score, had she not fumed about it to me? Of course not. And would she have told me if I were a stranger, or mild acquaintance? Again, of course not. And the resulting ignorance would not have been my fault had I dated someone else, but neither could I declare with authority that "oh, that sort of thing never happens anymore" when I never had the opportunity to learn otherwise, much less have "that sort of thing" dropped in my lap.

This goes far beyond racism and bigotry, which is active distrust of those Not Like Us. This is a combination of proximity, general empathy, and (at bare minimum) conscious awareness of the state of things.

I get where you're coming from. In a moment, without thinking about it, we'll feel the thing that hurts us more than the thing that hurts another person, and we'll assume the damage to be greater because it happened to us. When someone makes a joke about a guy hitting his girlfriend, it pisses me off. When someone makes a joke about a girl hitting her boyfriend, I think it's funny, because it's a joke.

That's the thing, though. That's only the instant reaction. Because then I stop and think, "Wait, that isn't funny, because it wouldn't be funny the other way."

So as far as instant reactions go, it's perfectly normal. It's just a human flaw. It's an evolutionary thing. We watch out for ourselves. But we do have the ability to think, and to realize that we were wrong about certain things.

I'm white and female.

If you ask me whether women have it harder than men, I will say yes, because I have looked over the facts and it does look to be that way, objectively. We make less money, we're attacked more often, we aren't allowed the same reproductive choices, etc. Men do have their problems (child custody, rigid views on masculinity, not taken seriously as victims), and I recognize that. But if you ask me to weigh the two, my gut reaction is "women have it harder," because I am a woman, and my informed reaction is the same after reviewing the information available (rape statistics, income, etc.).

If you ask me whether black people have it harder than white people, I will say yes. Because of the same thing, because I thought about it instead of going with my gut reaction. There are some things that happen to white people that are unfair. There are certain words we can't say without people getting mad, even though other races can say them. There are certain scholarships and such that we can't get because race is a factor. And that's unfair, and it sucks, and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't. But black people have a shorter average lifespan, black people are more likely to be born into poverty, black people are more likely to be accused of crimes and generally mistrusted, black people usually can't afford decent education (which is actually why they have a better shot at those scholarships I mentioned), etc. Black people have a harder time than white people. And the fact that I am white does not change my view on that.

What I'm trying to say is, if a person can't get past zir gut reaction, zie might need to work on a few things.

I agree with both of you and an important part of what you're both saying could be put more succinctly as "the plural of anecdote is not data". This is not to devalue personal experiences, but they are, whether you're conscious of it or not, usually not representative or reliable because of the small sample and several types of cognitive bias, and should not be used to base general conclusions on.

[Valerie]

Right. If I meet three Buddhists and they're all rude, that doesn't mean all Buddhists are rude. It just means at least three of them are rude, and, even then, they may have just been having a bad day or something.

I have no specific reason for choosing "Buddhist" as my group here. I don't think I've ever met one, let alone three rude ones.

[FlyingFish]

Right. If I meet three Buddhists and they're all rude, that doesn't mean all Buddhists are rude. It just means at least three of them are rude, and, even then, they may have just been having a bad day or something.

I think I've been somewhat misinterpreted (or I poorly explained myself).

When I first encountered (second-hand) a professor who was biased against Latinas, I did not conclude that all professors, or even most, are so biased. What I did conclude, accurately, was that there exist professors that are so biased. Until then, I could delude myself with the belief that a man who had achieved a professorship would never hold such a ridiculous stance. Now I had anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Those who are the targets of such racism get to experience such anecdotes regularly. They have regular reminders that racism is still out there. People who are not the targets of a specific type of racism can continue to delude themselves that it's not there at all, or that where it exists it is milder than it is (or that the target had it coming for some reason totally unrelated to his race, really!)

This is where anecdotes are useful: they disprove the statement that "it does not happen."

[Bardlp]

Here's another potential article title containing a metaphor. Let me know if this one is offensive:

Gay Black Male: Not everyone thinks you're a diva on a runway.



Actually, I'd be pretty happy if people stopped thinking that gay men's self-identification meant growing a drama-queen fashionista personality like some kind of melanoma. Kind of another topic, though.

So I guess an article titled "Gay Black Male: Not everyone thinks you're a diva on a runway" would offend you, and yet you think I'm overly defensive about about an article titled: "Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is" ?

Really?

No, not really. I think you'd find it rather hard to offend somebody whose emotional depth runs from apathetic to vaguely amused. Especially since this is the Internet, and I'm only kind of paying attention to this forum, and the things that happen on the Internet have a slightly nonzero impact on my life to start with.

So let's try it again. Pretend I'm a real person and not the straw man you make me into when you put words in my mouth and pretend I said -- "Actually, I'd be pretty happy if somebody wrote that article. It would show a cultural awareness that not everybody who is a gay, black, male has to be a drama queen fashionista that, frankly, has still not penetrated particularly deeply into the mainstream consciousness."

And that's why taking issue with a title out of context comes off as defensive.

[Otaking]

somebody whose emotional depth runs from apathetic to vaguely amused.

And that's why taking issue with a title out of context comes off as defensive.

Not going to bother to respond to the trolling but to reiterate the point:

Yes, I am defensive about a racist article. I just thought it was funny that you'd point that out, as if I didn't have a right to be defensive about racist articles. A lot of the responses on this board confirm what I was saying earlier: "Everyone knows you can't be racist toward whites."

Or to put it another way with less sarcasm but more useless PC wording: Reverse racism (whatever that actually is) doesn't solve racism. Hint: it's all racism.

Or to put it another way: Two wrongs don't make a right.

I hear Scalzi's working on a sequel article: "Hey whitey, why so uppity?"

I agree that blacks have it harder than whites. I don't agree that continually focusing on this and trying to legislate centuries of cultural differences out of the world within our nation is an effective solution. Much better to focus on improving quality of life for everyone, not just blacks. Much better to reverse the direction that the U.S. is moving toward...that of becoming a total police state where everyone is a criminal who just hasn't been caught yet due to increasing burdens of legislature on everyone, than worry about who's going to jail first. I hear jail is a good retirement plan now...maybe I'll knock over a bank when I'm 70 so the system can pay me for a while...I've never received government aid...the closest I came was two unpaid FMLA leaves for my wife's surgeries.


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/02/poor-white-and-republican.html

[Ollie]

Or to put it another way with less sarcasm but more useless PC wording: Reverse racism (whatever that actually is) doesn't solve racism. Hint: it's all racism.

Hint: you're using an extremely simple definition of racism that doesn't qualify to the fullest extent, mainly because people don't think of the social systems that've been built up over several hundred years to define why race is such a heavy topic today.

Racism is not just "discrimination based on race."

Racism is prejudice, privilege, and power. All together, all at once.

And since there's only one group that gets all of those at all (or nearly all) times, guess what group is the only one that has the true power of racism?

Cue defensive YT freak-out...nnnao