I don’t think they are more hyperbolic than the ludicrous posts that make up a large portion of political commentary here that go uncommented on because they are congruent with the views of the vast majority of the participants of this board. Shoot, I don’t even think they are hyperbolic.
Sorry, I lost focus after post #71 and will not pursue this hijack any further.
~Max
So, weaponized accusations are okay as long as you think they’re the truth–is that what you’re saying?
If octopus is fine with being nasty towards those who use accusations as a weapon, and he himself uses accusations as a weapon (which you implied but he did not admit), it would follow that he is fine with other people being nasty towards him. What you write (that weaponized accusations are okay if they are true) does not follow.
From what I can tell, octopus’s main argument is that a person accused of racism should not reflexively defer to the accuser or beg forgiveness,
The underlying premise, I think, that we should avoid a situation where unsubstantiated accusations create a chilling effect. On that basis he cited the Smollett hate crime hoax, and if I understand octopus’s argument correctly, the two men who were held in police custody on suspicion of battery should not reflexively apologize when accused.
The Smollett incident is a very poor example because the accusation there was not merely racism, but actual battery. There is no question as to whether you beat someone up or not, and nobody in their right mind will come out apologizing to police for a hate crime they didn’t commit (or in this case, that they staged).
~Max
Only in the most C++ of worlds does it not follow.
Octopus expects the Spanish Inquisition!
And the consequences of being called racist are usually quite small unless the person in question reacts badly, not following what I or other posters have said. It is the reaction that generally creates the problem, not the initial remark.
The people who wind up facing severe consequences for racism are very nearly always those who refuse to apologize and refuse to explain what they mean. They are the people who refuse to show empathy. They are the ones who decide they must continually escalate the situation and never back down.
I can’t remember the last time I saw someone accused of racism who responded the way I said above and then wound up in severe trouble for it. In fact, that’s the entire reason for my advice. Even if you believe you aren’t being racist, being the guy who must vehemently explain themselves makes you come off like @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness’s Rebecca. Or like the first guy in the OP, who wrote a 9 page essay.
That’s the point of my post. Since actually being racist is worse than being accused of racism, it’s better to err on the side of “maybe I was racist” and respond accordingly. From a practical perspective, that works out better. If you were racist, you come off well as someone who is trying to do better. If you weren’t, you come off as someone who took it seriously. If it’s a misunderstanding, you clear up that misunderstanding. And, if it’s a bad actor, you come off as the better person.
Plus this results in you learning more about what is and isn’t racist. Because the other big problem is that there are a lot of people who think they know 100% whether they were racist or not, and they’re very often wrong. What I see primarily in these threads are people who have actual expertise or experience with a form of bigotry explaining the underlying reasons, but some people refusing to listen. Those same posters later on wind up saying things that people consider to be bigoted in that way. They got so upset at the accusation that they didn’t stop to see if maybe they had a point. The field isn’t static. What we considered bigoted in the 1990s is not the same as what is considered so in 2021. And, again, we all have our own biases that may make us miss something.
If everyone would be more concerned with trying not to be racist rather than whether or not they get accused of racism, that would be a lot better. Instead of thinking in courtroom terms of needing to “prove an allegation,” it should be thought of as needing an explanation to learn from.
Being accused of racism is nowhere near the problem that being accused of a crime by police is. When things do go south is nearly always when the accused freaks out, refuses to consider they may be wrong, and refuses to apologize in any way.
I’ve said thousands of times “if you don’t apologize, you will be assumed to have meant to offend.” I’ve yet to see this not be true.
All your words basically boil down to one huge Kafka trap.
We come to a point where you think a person accused of racism, (regardless of whether they were or not) can either…
a) accept that accusation and apologise. (which confirms that they were racist)
b) explain that they were not being racist, not accept the accusation and not apologise (which means they were guilty of racism because why else would you do that?)
“racist” isn’t binary. It’s not true that some people are racist and others aren’t, and that admitting to racism puts you in the first bucket.
Racism is a spectrum. Everyone who has been exposed to multiple races has some racist tendencies. Some have more, some less, and all of us have the power to consider our actions and attempt to avoid acting on our racist tendencies. And everyone has the capacity to make mistakes.
Admitting to having said something racist, and apologizing for it, doesn’t make you an evil racist. It makes you an ordinary human being who is trying to do better.
The issue is whether that accusation, that you have said something racist, is valid or not.
Some accusations are valid, some are not. Apoligies for the former are right and proper, Apologies for the latter are not.
Even if you have no racist intent, if your comment was taken to be racist and offended someone, i believe an apology is right and proper. If i am sitting, minding my own business, and someone comes by and trips over my foot and is hurt, i would apologize for hurting them. Even though I’m not at any significant fault.
You cannot be held accountable for what someone else mistakenly believes or the offence that someone takes when none is offered.
You are assuming that the person offended is automatically correct and that the person they accuse is automatically in the wrong. I don’t agree.
If someone expresses a point of view that offends me, am I automatically owed an apology? Should I expect that person to stop expressing that point of view?
You don’t have to apologize for anything. If you’re not sorry or don’t care what other people think then just go about your day.
I mean I don’t ever need a fake ass apology from anybody.
But you can apologize for inadvertantly upsetting someone else. That’s just common civility. Just like I’d apologize if someone tripped over my foot when i was just sitting peaceably.
I prefer to actively try to avoid harming others. So if i learn that my harmless expression isn’t harmless to all, or that my chair is sitting too close to foot traffic, i apologize and address that going forward. Even though i had no malice and don’t think i failed to take reasonable precautions before. Now i know something new, and can act on it
But you do you.
To address this… Yes, in most cases. If i respect you and your opinions, and i inadvertently offend you, i will try to avoid that.
Yes, there are “can’t win” cases, where A or B will be offended whatever option i take. In real social situations, i tend to deal with that by avoiding that topic if both A and B are around.
But there’s a critical difference between “that expression hurts me” and “i disagree with that point of view.”
That’s one of the reasons many people distinguish “punching down” and “punching up”. Disagreeing with the opinion of someone who doesn’t actually have a lot personally at stake (is “up”) is much less hurtful than comparable comments re someone who is potentially damaged in their daily life by the opinion.
A large segment of the population sees apologizing (for anything) as a sign of weakness. They also seem to be addicted to the conflict + martyrdom cycle.
We all know that in the court of public opinion, the general rule is “if you are explaining, you are losing”. But, y’all know what, it does not have to always be about “winning”.
If it was truly an honest misunderstanding, or even a radical difference of opinion, indeed they have no moral obligation to stop expressing it.
I suppose that is part of the matter in this discussion, the expectation that somehow this is a way to force one of the parties to retract, or be publicly discredited, that “that was racist” is the Nuclear Option of discourse.
But going back to this:
Out of context, that can become the “I’m sorry someone felt offended” type of “courtesy apology” which tends to be castigated and savaged in some circles (including SDMB). However…
This is how it should be and what should happen, if indeed it was the case. And if the accuser keeps wanting more, then that’s on them.
My husband and I have a disagreement about what an apology means. To me, it includes some admission of fault, and an intention to avoid repeating the harmful behavior. Apologizing when you feel you’ve done nothing wrong and have no intention of changing your behavior feels disingenuous. I don’t like it when I tell him something bothers me, he apologizes, and then he carries on as before. If that’s what you’re going to do, be honest with me. He feels you apologize when you’ve upset someone, period, and doesn’t like that he apologizes more than I do (even though I don’t want those apologies in situations where I wouldn’t give them.)
So yes, I might apologize if someone tripped over my feet, because I might be at least partly at fault for the harm they suffered. But if someone walks into a pole because they’re staring at me, I’m not apologizing for that. Despite the positions my husband and I take on this issue, I think there’s a gender component to this divide, where women are socialized and often feel compelled to apologize for everyone’s suffering, where men tend to only feel responsible for their intentional acts, and not necessarily even the unintended consequences that flow from their actions.
Let’s take the Reddit story I posted above. To recap, the writer made a joke about orange cats being dumb, and a co-worker, "Pam,’ claimed she was being racist. The writer turned to the internet, and later spoke to HR, to see if she was missing something, because the accusation made no sense. Good for her–sometimes people say things that actually are racist, even though they don’t mean them that way, and don’t even realize it. When both the internet and HR validated the writer, should she have apologized to Pam for offending her? She did change some of the particular things Pam had complained about that she didn’t mind changing–putting up the orange cat’s photo on his staff bio, and getting him his own cat bed. But she did not agree to allow Pam’s nonsense with putting margarine on the cat or letting himself get trapped in the closet continue, and she did not apologize for upsetting Pam by taking that stand.
I don’t want a social code that says everyone who’s upset deserves an apology. I do want people to examine their own behavior with an open heart and mind. I want people to become aware of their missteps, and apologize for them. I also want people in positions of power to recognize and apologize for their sins of omission–for things they didn’t do but should have done. But I don’t think it actually helps people who have been harmed for everyone who claims harm to get an automatic apology.
They aren’t mutually exclusive though. Indeed, they often hang together.
Imagine a professor of anthropology, speaking to a class of students.
He states that all humans are apes, an absolute solid fact.
Could the black students in the class legitimately feel hurt by that?
Could the fundementalist religious students legitimately disagree with that point of view?
The offence is both real and sincere. Was the professor wrong to state that? Would it be right to withdraw that statement and apologise? Should he not state that fact again in front of similar groups in future?