Sure we can conceive of it; such situations happen all the time. We just don’t buy your claims that a completely vague hypothetical situation about which we know nothing at all except the hypothesis that “someone was accused of doing/saying something racist, yet it wasn’t” can be assigned a specific protocol of apology or non-apology.
Describe specific circumstances and we can discuss what specific actions we think would be appropriate in response to them. Refuse to be more specific about the circumstances than the vague statement “someone was accused of doing/saying something racist, yet it wasn’t”, and your specific prescriptions for how to behave in response to that situation remain entirely unconvincing.
Unless, of course, by “fight the hypothetical” you mean "refuse to give an exact description for how someone should respond that would be correct for every possible incident that could be described as ‘an accuser got heated up over something that turned out to be entirely innocent.’ "
In fact, here is me saying the exact opposite, and even giving an example of a case in which that might happen:
– and note that there I was referring not only to someone getting worked up about something innocent, but to someone getting deliberately worked up about something they also thought was innocent in order to get some sort of supposed benefit.
And here are two more posts in which I’m clearly quite capable of imagining that someone makes an accusation of racism when there isn’t any, not just in error, but even maliciously:
How on earth you can get out of all of that the following is utterly beyond me:
Would you care to try replying to what people are actually saying?
So, i can think of several hypotheticals where i didn’t intend to be racist, but someone accused me of racism:
there’s been a misunderstanding. They misheard me, or misunderstood me. I apologize and try to clear up the misunderstanding. “Oh, I’m sorry, this word sounds like that word, I’m sorry you heard it that way. I’ll try to be more clear in the future.”
there’s been a misunderstanding. I said something that is offensive even though i didn’t realize it was. I apologize and plan not to say that again.
i did something that might or might not have been influenced by my unconscious bias. I apologize. "I’m sorry i called you by that other person’s name. I’m partially face blind, but i should be more careful. I’ll try not to do that going forward.
a malicious actor called me a racist as a way to attack me. There’s no way to win this one, only ways to lose. I keep my head down and hope the other guy loses more than i do in the field of public opinion.
Say I’m Jewish, and someone finds this out, and drunkenly starts following me around at the house party making Nazi salutes. I am not an asshole for asking him to stop and apologize, even if I do so loudly enough that I’m heard over the music/stop the music so he can hear me. Because the presence of a Nazi (or an asshole who uses Nazism as trolling), that needs to be addressed by everyone (see my sigline). Everyone prioritizing maintaining a fake calm over dealing with an issue like a Nazi presence is the assole. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Same-same for other racists, or people using racist expressions and not apologizing when called on it.
The problem with your hypothetical is that pretty much everyone who has ever been accused of racism feels the accusation is unjust. By starting with that premise, you’re skipping over what is perhaps the most important part-- examining yourself honestly to see if perhaps there might have been some unconscious bias at play.
If you make the claim then it is up to you to back it up and the importance of doing so scales with the consequences and damage of the claim being made.
OK, let me help. There are real accusations of racism. More real accusations than false ones. But the rituals under discussion aren’t intended to figure out truth vs. falsehood, they are intended to reinforce the supremacy of the accusation, and elicit deference in its face.
And you can see this by the strenuous resistance to the suggestion that some of these accusations may be entirely meritless, the insistence that every such dispute requires an apology by the accused regardless of what actually transpired.
Imagine you were in a shop and upon leaving were stopped by a store detective and accused of shoplifting.
You’ve done no such thing but the detective shows you footage of you standing by the razors and fumbling beneath your coat in a manner that could be considered suspicious. there is no other evidence that can exonerate you.
In that scenario you do not owe anyone an apology. You’ve done nothing wrong and it is not up to you to prove your innocence. The perception that you were doing wrong is not enough to prove that you actually were.
And this is in a world where shoplifting does happen, where the accusations levelled are more often valid than not, where everyone has the potential to steal, where everyone is a little bit dishonest. It doesn’t matter. Being accused of dishonesty is a big issue, potentially career threatening or socially limiting and I think we would all expect such a forceful claim to be backed up with evidence.
There’s an important difference between that and the accusation of racism. In the accusation of shoplifting, the actual facts are in question. Did you take something and hide it in your coat? And you probably can prove your innocence by demonstrating there are no razors in your coat.
In most accusations of racism the facts are not in question. You said these words. Everyone agrees you said these words. If you didn’t, it falls under item 1 in my list, there’s been a misunderstanding. Apologize for inadvertent hurt, try not to do it again, and move on.
Which points out a second difference. If you didn’t shoplift, you didn’t actually hurt the store. If you said something that was perceived as racist you DID hurt the person who heard it. If i accidentally stick my elbow out as you come by and you are hurt bumping into it, i apologize for the hurt, even though it was inadvertent.
I agree, yet it is possible to exist in such a world whilst not assuming either malice or racism as a starting point.
If you judge each case on its merits you still end up punishing the truly racist incidents but not punishing those that are not. Call me an old softy if you like but I think that is a better way to live.
Every case judged on its merits or not still requires starting assumptions. You privilege the presumption of innocence, I don’t.
You also let a lot of actual racist shit fly because “Who can say?” or “it’s their word against yours”.
Racists rely on the combo of presumption of innocence and plausible deniability, it helps them thrive.
BTW, I initially balked at “truly racist” but I’ve decided to let it slide, because next thing we’re swimming in the “microagressions don’t exist” and “narratives aren’t evidence” cesspool, and I’ve just started my holidays and can’t be arsed tonight.
It’s a fine legal principle, no doubt. But society is not a court and I’m not going to ignore the overwhelming evidence of pervasive racism just for everyone’s fee-fees.