Racist - The Bear and Badger

Yossarian

RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

GurtTractor wrote:

If someone has the view that black people are bad, because they've seen that the colour black is sometimes attributed to badness, that's indicative of a total lack of exposure to any amount of wider societal context, and of a severe lack in reasoning ability.

I think that’s missing the argument here. I don’t think anyone is arguing this, but rather that the constant use of black being bad may help foster unconscious biases, assumptions that we make without even realising that we’re making them. We know that unconscious bias is a thing, if this has a possibility of reducing that, then it’s probably worth trying.

Not to be argumentative here but the use of the word black being a bad thing though doesnt come from skin colour though (although I'm not saying there isnt a connection) . Many illness involve parts of our body (whatever you're colour) turning black as a warning sign from nature. Necrosis, Decayed teeth, Smoke Damaged Lungs. No-one assigned that, its a visual fact. In Science, Black is the absence of Light.

Conversly there are also uses of the word black that are positive - In the Black, Black Gold etc. Black generally is linked to sophistication and oppulance - black tie, black limo etc.

That may well be etymologically correct, but does it really make any difference?

RedDave2

You are saying the use of black as "bad" creates social bias. I'm not sure that holds up unless you really want to believe it does.

I'm pointing out black will be linked to both positive and negative uses. In some cases the negative can't really be side stepped. They are what they are.

Black is usually good for mysterious (hence why goths do love it so) I'd imagine this fed into its use for the evil mysterious village trope a lot more than any racial link.

GurtTractor

Yossarian wrote:

If you agree that language can reinforce negative stereotypes, I don’t really understand why you would think that this language in particular doesn’t do that. I understand that there are also larger forces at play here, but surely those larger forces would only mean that it’s more likely that this language can reinforce those stereotypes that are in the air anyway, no?

I've pretty much exhausted all the ways I can think of to get my point across right now, so I'll just suggest that you or someone take an example and try to make a fair case for why one of these phrases will be harmful, with some causality. Might be an interesting excercise if nothing else. If you can be at all bothered that is, and it's fine if not, like I said I don't think this particular avenue matters that much, I think it's mostly a sideshow. Some are sensible, some are dubious.

This is probably the key point I've made so far about this topic, and relates to what Dave is saying -

Also white=good black=bad is only inherently bad when applied to people's skin colour, black=darkness=unable to see=danger/unknown=bad is also a thing. As with most proposed harmful language it's not actually the terms themselves that are the big issue, it's that the underlying prejudices persist within the beholders. Black=bad=racism doesn't inherently flow out of superficially related phrases, the idea of dark skin=bad is something that is nurtured in them by the culture they grew up in, the prejudices and inequalities that were impressed upon them.

Yossarian

RedDave2 wrote:

You are saying the use of black as "bad" creates social bias. I'm not sure that holds up unless you really want to believe it does.

I'm pointing out black will be linked to both positive and negative uses. In some cases the negative can't really be side stepped. They are what they are.

Black is usually good for mysterious (hence why goths do love it so) I'd imagine this fed into its use for the evil mysterious village trope a lot more than any racial link.

I’d say that as an adjective, the use of black to mean something negative is likely used an order of magnitude more commonly than it is to mean something positive.

Yossarian

GurtTractor wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

If you agree that language can reinforce negative stereotypes, I don’t really understand why you would think that this language in particular doesn’t do that. I understand that there are also larger forces at play here, but surely those larger forces would only mean that it’s more likely that this language can reinforce those stereotypes that are in the air anyway, no?

I've pretty much exhausted all the ways I can think of to get my point across right now, so I'll just suggest that you or someone take an example and try to make a fair case for why one of these phrases will be harmful, with some causality. Might be an interesting excercise if nothing else. If you can be at all bothered that is, and it's fine if not, like I said I don't think this particular avenue matters that much, I think it's mostly a sideshow. Some are sensible, some are dubious.

This is probably the key point I've made so far about this topic, and relates to what Dave is saying -

Also white=good black=bad is only inherently bad when applied to people's skin colour, black=darkness=unable to see=danger/unknown=bad is also a thing. As with most proposed harmful language it's not actually the terms themselves that are the big issue, it's that the underlying prejudices persist within the beholders. Black=bad=racism doesn't inherently flow out of superficially related phrases, the idea of dark skin=bad is something that is nurtured in them by the culture they grew up in, the prejudices and inequalities that were impressed upon them.

I’ve already given my example, using black to mean negative things can increase unconscious bias, you seem to accept that this is a possibility, but it doesn’t apply in this case because…?

RedDave2

Yossarian wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

You are saying the use of black as "bad" creates social bias. I'm not sure that holds up unless you really want to believe it does. I'm pointing out black will be linked to both positive and negative uses. In some cases the negative can't really be side stepped. They are what they are. Black is usually good for mysterious (hence why goths do love it so) I'd imagine this fed into its use for the evil mysterious village trope a lot more than any racial link.

I’d say that as an adjective, the use of black to mean something negative is likely used an order of magnitude more commonly than it is to mean something positive.

That might be correct (I'd argue Red gets it worse thanks to being the danger/ blood colour but whatever) but as in the example I gave, much of that comes from nature. So its hardwired in any person of any colour to look at their finger which has gone black or a tooth which has gone black and know that "that looks bad"

Linking it to skin colour feels like a leap too far. Are all white people actually dead? Are the Irish all full of envy (actually, scratch that. That ones true)

Yossarian

But again, this may well be correct, but does that really matter? If the source of these phrases can be misinterpreted, and that misinterpretation can have negative effects, and changing the language isn’t that hard, why not just change the language?

LivDiv

Its easy to slip into the "but what if exception is taking to this" arguments. Its probably better to wait and see if that actually ever happens then argue it.
I suspect most of these things will have their own merits either side of the argument such is the complex nature of our language.

RedDave2

Yossarian wrote:

But again, this may well be correct, but does that really matter? If the source of these phrases can be misinterpreted, and that misinterpretation can have negative effects, and changing the language isn’t that hard, why not just change the language?

I agree with you for the most part with words, I think on the issue of Black, I feel you are looking for something that is coming from a completely different direction. Black is a very widely used colour and will have both negative and positive applications.

I mean yeah, Black was the colour of Darth Vadar. But than it become the colour of Luke. But Red has always been stereotyped as Sith.

(unless I am completely missing your point and you mean we should not use the term black to describe a persons skin colour?)

dynamiteReady

GurtTractor wrote:

I understand that, I'm just very doubtful that some of the previously discussed terms are in fact fostering unconscious biases, it seems immensely unlikely to me that those would impart a meaningful amount of bias vs so many other major socio-economic and cultural factors that are the real root causes of racism.

Like, I'm personally less bothered about certain terms associated with distributed computing. Somewhat similarly I'm not bothered about the recent challenge to the political correctness of 'Midget Gems'. But if it's moved enough people to make such a change, I can support it. In both cases, I feel I can appreciate the argument for making a change. And in many cases, seeing as such a change is not impossible, I'm not going to argue against it.

In fact, I'm more concerned by the people who put so much energy into preserving these tropes, for reasons that aren't entirely rational.
With this tech related shit, as a professional in the field, I get it. In some products/projects/codebases, a name change of that nature is a huge risk, so I understand that form of reluctance.

But this 'why are you people getting offended for' shit, in itself, is a form of racism.

We're all of a certain age, and aware of certain things (we all seem to ingest a great deal of news, and watch HIGNFY semi-religiously),
So I'm sure you remember the furore that surrounded the dismantling of the Golliwog brand?

I grew up being fed on Robinson jam. Was literally 'fed' racial hatred, unwittingly.

If you asked a 4/5 year black kid in the 80s for opinion on the 'Golli' brand, what do you think they would say?
Of course they wouldn't even know they're being made fun of, and of course they would love the little cartoon attached to the sweet treat.

Almost 100 years that shit lasted.

Of course now, we can see it's wrong.

And I bet, during the Windrush migration, there were calls then, if not looong before, to change that brand. But I also bet those calls were suppressed by arguments similar to this one:

As for people raising complaints about a thing and society considering making a sweeping change, I do think we have to be looking at wider impacts, not just an individual's opinion. I don't think that is particularly controversial.

...I'm not suggesting that we should demand absolute proof about such things, I just mean we should actually ask at least some of the affected parties if they even care first.

I'm not trying being antagonistic here (at the very least, I don't think I'm being rude to you, but correct me if you think that's the case), but it's in this exact way, that the Golliwog lasted as commercial trademark for over a century.

Fast forward to the present day, and some people suggest that perhaps 'master' can be replaced in many instances by 'lead', 'main' or 'parent', and that 'slave' can be replaced by 'child'.

In fact, for tech, 'parent' -> 'child' might actually be preferable in the long run, because those terms are OOP tenets anyway, so it would be a natural move to make. And yeah... 'master' / 'slave' is conspicuous to some. Llike I'd wrote elsewhere recently, while I didn't quite see it as a problem myself, it was actually a project manager (white) who raised it when I was describing a system to them.

And in this way, it was actually a hinderance. But in other workplaces, I bet those terms provide the opportunity for far more sinister flashpoints.

And with that, I'd argue it's probably worth a change both on social justice terms, and on purely logical terms (it would homogenize terms across two closely related fields).

But should people really need to go through this trudge every time, Gurt?

Really?

GurtTractor

Yossarian wrote:

I’ve already given my example, using black to mean negative things can increase unconscious bias, you seem to accept that this is a possibility, but it doesn’t apply in this case because…?

No you misunderstood, I don't accept that as given. I said I "agree that language has the potential to unintentionally reinforce negative stereotypes.", so I totally accept that it can happen and that we should think about it. I'm just disagreeing about this case in particular, and making the case that some concept creep seems to be happening which possibly weakens a progressive position.

Yossarian

RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

But again, this may well be correct, but does that really matter? If the source of these phrases can be misinterpreted, and that misinterpretation can have negative effects, and changing the language isn’t that hard, why not just change the language?

I agree with you for the most part with words, I think on the issue of Black, I feel you are looking for something that is coming from a completely different direction. Black is a very widely used colour and will have both negative and positive applications.

I mean yeah, Black was the colour of Darth Vadar. But than it become the colour of Luke. But Red has always been stereotyped as Sith.

(unless I am completely missing your point and you mean we should not use the term black to describe a persons skin colour?)

My argument is simply that changing phrases such as black hat, blacklist, and who knows what else isn’t a big ask (moving to gender-neutral job titles is proof of this) and it may be beneficial, so why not?

Yossarian

GurtTractor wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

I’ve already given my example, using black to mean negative things can increase unconscious bias, you seem to accept that this is a possibility, but it doesn’t apply in this case because…?

No you misunderstood, I don't accept that as given. I said I "agree that language has the potential to unintentionally reinforce negative stereotypes.", so I totally accept that it can happen and that we should think about it. I'm just disagreeing about this case in particular, and making the case that some concept creep seems to be happening which possibly weakens a progressive position.

I never said that you accepted that as a given, I said you accepted it as a possibility but you don’t think it’s happening here for reasons that you (still) haven’t really articulated.

GurtTractor

@dynamite I think you're taking my points waaay too far to mean something I'm not actually saying, and missing the point.

In fact, I'm more concerned by the people who put so much energy into preserve these tropes, for reasons that aren't entirely rational.

On this bit I agree with you, though I'm additionally making a point about energy going in the other direction, and how I think some of it is a sideshow that isn't actually dealing with the problem.

RedDave2

Yossarian wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

But again, this may well be correct, but does that really matter? If the source of these phrases can be misinterpreted, and that misinterpretation can have negative effects, and changing the language isn’t that hard, why not just change the language?

I agree with you for the most part with words, I think on the issue of Black, I feel you are looking for something that is coming from a completely different direction. Black is a very widely used colour and will have both negative and positive applications. I mean yeah, Black was the colour of Darth Vadar. But than it become the colour of Luke. But Red has always been stereotyped as Sith. (unless I am completely missing your point and you mean we should not use the term black to describe a persons skin colour?)

My argument is simply that changing phrases such as black hat, blacklist, and who knows what else isn’t a big ask (moving to gender-neutral job titles is proof of this) and it may be beneficial, so why not?

Yeah, fair point. For specific phrases, its not a big ask at all.

Suggest we go with "knob" for black hats and "naughty list" for black list.

GurtTractor

Yossarian wrote:

I never said that you accepted that as a given, I said you accepted it as a possibility but you don’t think it’s happening here for reasons that you (still) haven’t really articulated.

Both me and Dave have articulated this, I suggest you re-read our recent posts. If you still don't get my point of view then that's fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

davyK

Black people aren't actually black. The word is acceptable to black people but it does mean other things.

The absence of light is the main reason for the bad connotations it has.

GurtTractor

@dynamite Additionally, there is a huge gulf of difference between something like the Golliwog, and the relatively inconsequential and unimpactful terminology which has been the topic of discussion. So I don't think it's wise to associate my arguments about the latter and relate them to similarities about the former that much. I think you may be mischaracterising my arguments in that regard.

dynamiteReady

GurtTractor wrote:

@dynamite I think you're taking my points waaay too far to mean something I'm not actually saying, and missing the point.

No, no. I am actually just taking those ideas you've described, and applying them to a real case to show why I think those ideas are problematic. But it's a discussion, and we're bound to see some things differently.

I'm not suggesting that we should demand absolute proof about such things, I just mean we should actually ask at least some of the affected parties if they even care first.

Lets drop 'race' for a bit, and instead consider the EU referendum. Is it unfair for people who abstained from the vote, or even misinformed leave voters, to complain about current cost of living issues?

I mean, we all were actually asked?

dynamiteReady

GurtTractor wrote:

@dynamite Additionally, there is a huge gulf of difference between something like the Golliwog, and the relatively inconsequential and unimpactful terminology which has been the topic of discussion.

Ah. Ok. Like the terms 'half-caste' or 'spastic'.

You know. I'm really glad the slur 'spastic' has been left behind.

Kow

The kids when I was at school called each other spasms. I think it must have been some locally twisting of words to avoiding getting into trouble.

GurtTractor

Getting a bit straw manny there dyna.

dynamiteReady

GurtTractor wrote:

Getting a bit straw manny there dyna.

True.

But I think those two terms in my last post were considered acceptable language for a very long time too.
We now use those terms much less.

Why?

Exploring this fact would/could actually be conducive to your argument, no?

How much have we lost, culturally, in the substitution of those two terms?

Similarly, how much will a DB admin lose, if asked to label the lead node in a cluster a 'parent', and the leaf nodes as 'children'?

We disagree however, because I think this kind of exercise ignores the social problem itself, whereas I think you believe it's more dangerous (somehow), to let emotional arguments shape / distort common symbols for important ontological concepts?*

*Plucked that one out my arse, sorry, but I think it just about makes sense?