Talk:Everyone is racist

"... this article lacks important depth of content."

I assume the above assertion is by FuzzyCatPotato(-e in Indiana). Can you suggest a few possible sub-topics to add depth? I honestly thought there wasn't much more to say. The Reverend already threw out a paragraph, maybe for being too peripheral. I don't know. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The source you linked to used power plus prejudice as its working definition of racism. However, we basically consider P+P to be beyond oversimplified (unless otherwise stated) — see our article for a plethora of solid reasons why. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@RBP: of course, you make these decisions. But, my point was to study E = "everyone is racist," as a mime. There are left and right-wing slants as proposed by FCP, but they :::necessarily assume non-equivalent definitions of racism. Right-wingers might say E because they are racists, admit it and say everyone else satisfies E because of "liberal racism" :::which is not racism by RW standards, never-the-less this right-wing view agrees that E is true.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO the page should have at least these takeaways:

1: Virtually everyone is implicitly biased. (Or: "Everyone is biased")

2: Implicit bias is not identical to racism/sexism/etc. but can help cause implicit racism/sexism/etc. in decision-making. (Or: "Bias != racism")

3: Implicit bias is unavoidable, and so should not be shamed, but people should be encouraged to reduce their implicit bias. (Or: "Everyone is racist" isn't helpful)

4: People who understand that they're biased, refuse to reduce that bias, and explicitly call themselves racist or promote racism really are racist. (Or: "I just admit it" really does make them a prick)

Right now, it really doesn't. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

3: Does unavoidability necessarily mean you should not be shamed? Many parents unavoidably harm their children by having to work too much and not spending enough time at home, yet they feel shame. Would you tell them they should not feel shame? Maybe. In fact, is shame ever a helpful emotion to give people? Isn't it almost always better to encourage the right behaviour rather than to shame the wrong behaviour? Things to ponder.

4: Technically calling yourself a racist does not make you a prick unless you also mean that you won't do anything about it. "I admit I'm racist, but I would like to become less racist" would be fine, for example. Of course in the case that's mentioned on the page, it is strongly implied that said person does not intend to do anything about it, so I won't question the jumping to the conclusion that said person is a prick. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. IMO: 1)Implicit bias is an actual area of active research and should have an article page of its own, which someone should try to write.

2)The first part is implied, more or less in indirect language, and the second part is straight forward. It could be stated as such with several examples. i.e., any

unconscious process could erupt in conscious experience. 3)There may be no evidence that this is possible, i.e., the implicit function may be organic, or in some sense autonomic as :::in the case of the Tourette syndrome or like the mechanism determining how you feel about cookie dough ice cream or a nest of wasps. 4) This is classical racism and a link to the :::racism article could be included. These people are not funny. I would just say they are pricks and leave it at that.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

They both seem to be the same exact argumentKnightofjustice123 (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC).

If I understood you right K of J,I think I fixed it.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, anti-racism has a problem. On the one hand 'everyone is racist', in that everybody forms stereotypes based on crude inferences, and everybody has subconscious biases that they may not even be aware of, and at worst know better than to speak aloud. On the other hand, what do we do with racists? We force them to sell their basketball teams, for one. We hound them out of their jobs. We deny them any position of public prominence or earned fame. We mob them on the Internet, and do what we can to wreck their lives. These ideas coexist comfortably in many minds. There is a problem here, that this article should possibly explore. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Smerdis of TlönThis approach has the limitation of working well only when opposition is in some sense exhausted. That is, when the willingness to resist within the fabric of society is so weakened, few would object to the generally recognized opprobrium. For many of us the Nazi, fascist, bigot and racist, are not just people associated with inhumane behavior. They are people who disagree with some approved or progressive idea, principle or policy. These people cannot be so easily dislodged. And if one gets in the face of a real Nazi, one might end up like Julia, the friend of Lillian Hellman.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

In-group favouritism

In-group favouritism/bias exists amongst certain ethnic/kin/cultural groups - so-called 'ethnic nepotism'. Lots of studies have shown this. I think the "everyone is racist" argument is just saying that people have an innate tendency to prefer members of their own group, rather than outsiders; the article seems to be missing this. My problem with "everyone is racist" is the name, more appropriate would be something like "everyone is tribalist" or something like that because the in-group bias is only observed among groups much smaller than social races: so rather than white people innately preferring white people, it is Scots preferring Scots, Dutch preferring Dutch etc.86.14.2.77 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@.86.14.2.77 Yes. This topic is mentioned in the article, and is important. The title of the article is essentially what the article is about: the claim, not the reality. Renaming it would deform its original objective.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that's covered in the article already in some form (by the so-called liberal argument) I think the article itself deals with the definition of racism (which prejudice =/= racism technically unless you stretch the definition of racism to meaninglessness) and specifically how this inherent prejudice is applied, in a nonsensical way or a means to be even more racist. People may justify their bigotry and brush off criticism of racism and say "Everyone is racist; I just admit mine". --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really get the liberal argument though. Is it their opinion in-group bias is wrong, and therefore they want to erase, or oppose it? If so, that's pretty dumb because in many cases it is an inborn tendency. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think they're saying it's wrong. I think it's a conclusion they've made based on in-group out-group biases. IDK I'm a liberal and my opinion is that we should be aware of in-group and out-group tendencies and try to minimize is to the best of our abilities since it's so irrational. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Bias in examples

Most conservatives I meet explicitly deny being racist. Saying that conservatives say "I just admit it" seems a bit biased to me. ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.246.65.82 / talk}

I would imagine they would deny being racist all together. Conservatism and self-awareness tend not to go together well. Also depends on the conservative. The white supremacist people who call themselves conservative (or media reports them as "conservative") might do "I admit it". Overall, I question the structure of the article, being divded between arbitrary political lines which in of themselves have little to do with the actual content of the arguments. We should just remove the political undertones and stick to the flavors of the arguments. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)