Steve, let me offer some nuance to your great example of the Black VP in a dark suit. I have argued for many years that accurately observing and internalizing an ACCURATE statistical trend as this example shows, is as you point out, not evidence of racism or bias on the part of the speaker, rather it is a reflection of reality in that b…
Steve, let me offer some nuance to your great example of the Black VP in a dark suit. I have argued for many years that accurately observing and internalizing an ACCURATE statistical trend as this example shows, is as you point out, not evidence of racism or bias on the part of the speaker, rather it is a reflection of reality in that building. I still believe this is true in a narrow sense.
But there is a second vantage on this issue. What is the effect on the VP? Particularly if it is a dramatic and systemic assumption made by EVERYONE in that location. It could be big.
So for me, this was a big mind shift. I don't need to deny the statistical reality here, nor do I need to in accurately accuse the speaker of a bias they do not have, and I can still register the very real harm that can nonetheless happen as a consequence.
Knowing this, now requires contentious people to take into account those kinds of effects and to put extra filters on their speech, and even thoughts as much as they are able. Not because they are secretly racist or even biased. Nope, simply because there is high propensity for those kinds of STATISTICALLY VALID assumptions to cause damage even as they remain valid.
I am not a fan of vilifying the speaker.. some acknowledgment of actual statistical realities should be made. At the same time, saying well this accurate should not be accepted as a defense either. We know what can cause harm, and as a member of civil society it is our duty to avoid it.
You don't say ``Hey fatso. can you come here?'' even if it is an accurate descriptor.
So that is the mind-shift for myself and for all others that could be in a position to speak in this way.
my thought for those who are spoken TO in this way is not such a popular one: It is to recognize that even when such words are said, if there is a clear statistical reality, we cannot know this person is biased, nor has ill intent. We do know they are insensitive, but we should leave it at that. Why? Because knowing that someone is good natured and bears us no ill will, but is rough and insensitive, is very different than knowing they mean you harm, or actively dislike you even after they find out the error in their assumption. Both things could be true of course, but society runs better, and we achieve more, when we assume the best interpretation when there is a real choice.
(I have the sense that maybe you already see things in the way I have frame this... somehow I decided to write it anyway ;-) )
Steve, let me offer some nuance to your great example of the Black VP in a dark suit. I have argued for many years that accurately observing and internalizing an ACCURATE statistical trend as this example shows, is as you point out, not evidence of racism or bias on the part of the speaker, rather it is a reflection of reality in that building. I still believe this is true in a narrow sense.
But there is a second vantage on this issue. What is the effect on the VP? Particularly if it is a dramatic and systemic assumption made by EVERYONE in that location. It could be big.
So for me, this was a big mind shift. I don't need to deny the statistical reality here, nor do I need to in accurately accuse the speaker of a bias they do not have, and I can still register the very real harm that can nonetheless happen as a consequence.
Knowing this, now requires contentious people to take into account those kinds of effects and to put extra filters on their speech, and even thoughts as much as they are able. Not because they are secretly racist or even biased. Nope, simply because there is high propensity for those kinds of STATISTICALLY VALID assumptions to cause damage even as they remain valid.
I am not a fan of vilifying the speaker.. some acknowledgment of actual statistical realities should be made. At the same time, saying well this accurate should not be accepted as a defense either. We know what can cause harm, and as a member of civil society it is our duty to avoid it.
You don't say ``Hey fatso. can you come here?'' even if it is an accurate descriptor.
So that is the mind-shift for myself and for all others that could be in a position to speak in this way.
my thought for those who are spoken TO in this way is not such a popular one: It is to recognize that even when such words are said, if there is a clear statistical reality, we cannot know this person is biased, nor has ill intent. We do know they are insensitive, but we should leave it at that. Why? Because knowing that someone is good natured and bears us no ill will, but is rough and insensitive, is very different than knowing they mean you harm, or actively dislike you even after they find out the error in their assumption. Both things could be true of course, but society runs better, and we achieve more, when we assume the best interpretation when there is a real choice.
(I have the sense that maybe you already see things in the way I have frame this... somehow I decided to write it anyway ;-) )