This Virtue Signalling Article Is Inexcusably Asinine
If you, like me, spend way too much time on Twitter, you’ve probably heard the story of Frederick Joseph. After being told to “stay in his hood” during an argument with a random white woman, Joseph spent the next few hours trying to get her fired (he succeeded), and publicly revealing her personal information to his 100,000+ Twitter followers.
This, he claimed, was a lesson in “accountability and consequences.”
In my article, The Self-Imposed Infantilisation Of Black People, I asked whether it was reasonable to ruin somebody’s life over such an insipid comment. And while making my case, I predicted that some people would use the historical marginalisation of black people as a demographic, to justify Joseph’s behaviour as an individual.
Sure enough, Daniel (who you might remember from this conversation) took up the challenge:
Daniel:
Some of you are already heading to the comments to lecture me about historical context and racial hierarchies. And yes, there are many ways in which Black people, as a demographic, are disadvantaged.
This virtue signalling article is inexcusably asinine. I failed to see the point of it other than ingratiating yourself to racists.
Superficially, you would appear to be reasonable. Some fair minded individual who thinks that the pendulum has swung too far, but you betrayed your motivation with the cited quote.
All of the examples you cited were classical incidents along the spectrum of racism, with the exception of the morons who bragged about stealing meals.
You disingenuously included the example to give credibility to the this dog’s feast. The fact that you threw in the individual versus the general experience of racism is a red herring.
Within the context of racism in America, it’s history, it’s intransigence and the denialism among the majority of white Americans to, acknowledge racism and it’s pathogenic legacy; victims are justified in calling it out. It’s not their responsibility to account for the consequences to their antagonists.
“Superficially, you would appear to be reasonable…but you betrayed your motivation with the cited quote.”
Writing is tricky in 2021. No matter how well structured your argument, if a single sentence can be interpreted in a negative light, even if it requires spectacular mental gymnastics to do so, some people will dismiss the entire article or even an entire body of work.
Combine this with our internet-addled attention spans, and it’s easy to find yourself in trouble even if you’ve been perfectly clear.
I deliberately gave examples of genuine racism and “faux” racism at the beginning of the article (and separated them to avoid confusion), because the whole point of the piece is to highlight the difference between the two, and the dangers of conflating them.
Apparently, this level of nuance was too much for Daniel to appreciate on his first pass.
Steve QJ:
I failed to see the point of it other than ingratiating yourself to racists.
Well, consider the possiblilty that this failure might be due to a lack of imagination on your part. And perhaps a lack of reading comprehension.
The first four examples were absolutely examples of racism. That's why they're there. To demonstrate that this kind of thing isn't simply black people whining over nothing.
But the others, the children's author who was dropped for an argument about classical literature, was clearly not racist. As you say, the girl fired because of the morons stealing meals was clearly not racist. I “threw in” those examples because just like the other women, they also lost their jobs. But in these cases, it was totally unjust. And while I can see where there's room for disagreement, I don't think Sarley was being racist either.
But even if you do disagree (I'm guessing you do) it's hard to argue that this wasn't, at most, one degree above absolute zero on the “spectrum of racism”. So, as I said, if he decided to waste some time trading insults with her or whatever, I certainly wouldn't have wasted time writing about it. But the man spent hours trying to ruin her life! Not just by getting her fired, but by doxxing her to hundreds of thousands of people. Wherever you stand on this, you can't possibly claim that's justified.
This, as I also say in the article, is my problem. The normalisation of this idea that black people are spiteful weaklings. Calling out racism is a good thing. You'll not find a word I've ever written that suggests it's not. But pretending that everything is racism makes that harder to do. We need to shake the idea that we should uncritically jump to the defence of every person who cries "racism". It doesn't help us.
Daniel:
Well, consider the possiblilty that this failure might be due to a lack of imagination on your part. And perhaps a lack of reading comprehension.
I had no idea that your article was meant to be a language exercise. The primary objective in writing is to communicate effectively. Any failure to achieve this is the responsibility of the author’s. Projecting that failure is an understandable response, so I shall let it pass.
Thanks for the explanation, but having elucidated your perspective, I still failed to see any positive virtue or purpose in the article.
It’s not my intention to be unkind, so I will explain.
African Americans and African West Indians are the only humans ever to result from human breeding programs. A deliberate attempt by white peoples to genetically engineer human beasts of burden. Very much like breeding animals such as horses, dogs and cattle. The attitude of those responsible lives on in their offspring. That’s one explanation for their support for the article. When you consider the human cost to the ancestors and their offspring down to the present, I mean suffering, degradation and cruelty off the scale for even the the most erudite of humanity to describe comprehensively, I fail to see the merit in contrasting or even highlighting the behaviour of a few emotionally deficient individuals and the relatively negative impact on the privileged lives of those who are incapable of seeing their fellowman as equally human.
In mitigation, I believe that justice should always be proportionate and tempered with mercy. In the examples you cited there may well have been overkill. Such over reaction only leads to further polarisation and is ultimately counterproductive.
“The attitude of those responsible lives on in their offspring. That’s one explanation for their support for the article.”
Every single time I write an article that challenges the idea that black people are, first and foremost, helpless, oppressed victims, a few people of colour will comment (by way of criticism) that white people approved of the article. And every single time, they’ll completely ignore the black people who also approved.
Yet so far (and I expect this trend to continue), the black people who agree always outnumber those who disagree. As I say over and over again, the majority of black people are sensible and reasonable about racial issues. It’s just that sadly, the most unreasonable people are the ones most likely to write bitter, race-baiting articles and leave mean, passive-aggressive comments.
I’m all for disagreement of course. Engaging with people who think differently is how we grow. But it’s telling how disdainful some black people are of those of us who don’t say the “right” thing.
Steve QJ:
I had no idea that your article was meant to be a language exercise
Haha, well it’s a language exercise only insofar as it’s written in English! If you can’t follow the thread of an idea, and react with your emotions instead, you’re likely to misunderstand. But given that thousands of people have been able to follow the context of the examples given and you haven’t, I’m inclined to place the blame with you there.😉
Further making my point, you say you don’t see any "positive virtue or purpose" in the article, and yet you’ve neatly summarised it in this paragraph.
“I believe that justice should always be proportionate and tempered with mercy. In the examples you cited there may well have been overkill. Such over reaction only leads to further polarisation and is ultimately counterproductive.”
This is pretty much the entire thesis of the article. I’d just go one step further and point out that the normalisation of the idea that black people are spiteful weaklings is actively harmful to the aim of equality. I’d say there’s a great deal of "virtue" in opposing it.
So now you know what this “virtue signalling article“ is about, maybe the next time you find yourself reacting emotionally, try reading again, and if that doesn’t help, try expressing yourself like the reasonable person that you’re clearly capable of being. Resorting to bad-faith character attacks right off the bat isn’t a good look.
As I said, most black people are reasonable on the topic of race. Even the unreasonable ones! Daniel, it turns out, doesn’t disagree with me at all (at least in this instance). He’s just so primed to be offended that he needs his hand held through the process of thinking.
As Thomas Sowell put it (this may well be my favourite quote of all time):
The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.
In both of our conversations, Daniel has been quick to remind me of the unthinkable suffering black people endured during slavery and the generations of mistreatment that followed. And believe me, I don’t need to be reminded. If you don’t feel something when you hear about these atrocities, you aren’t wired up right.
The historical marginalisation of black people is important context in conversations about race. It explains why we see racial disparities in wealth and homeownership and education. It explains why, for example, the “war on drugs” so wildly disproportionately impacted black people, and why the opioid epidemic was handled so differently from the crack epidemic. It explains why people like Daniel can be so difficult to talk to.
But as understandable as those feelings are, we have to think if we want to move forward. We have to think about whether it makes sense to forever judge race relations by the standard of slavery. We have to think about the message we’re sending to future generations by constantly pretending that black people are helpless victims. We have to think about whether we want to cling to the racialised thinking that caused all this suffering in the first place.
This thinking is difficult and messy and we’re inevitably going to disagree. But if you ask me, there’s a great deal of virtue in doing it.
"Writing is tricky in 2021. No matter how well structured your argument, if a single sentence can be interpreted in a negative light, even if it requires spectacular mental gymnastics to do so, some people will dismiss the entire article or even an entire body of work."
This actually falls a bit outside of the overall theme of this article but it jumped out at me as something from my experience. At one time I was a technical instructor for my employer's avionics products with airline and support center maintenance personnel students. We issued a completion certificate which was required by aeronautical authorities, but we did not test.
Perhaps it isn't so far off the point of this commentary article after all.
One of the instructors suggested that we should test and another instructor who's degree was in industrial education said that we were not qualified to write tests (a skill of its own). Disagreement followed and he said, I want all of you to write a test (multiple choice) for one of the products you teach that I have not taken the class. He passed them all with flying colors and went on to explain that he had used a different method for choosing the correct answer on each test which had nothing to do with him giving technical thought to them.
Here's the point (finally). For one of the tests he chose the shortest answer for each question. He explained that the longer the answer, the more likely there would be something falsifying. A lesson I learned in the early 1990s and sometimes forgotten in internet "discussion." And when I forget, I sometimes get burned when someone latches onto the one thing, ignoring the larger body. Here, you can relate.
Perhaps related to the idea that a solution should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Sorry about the length but I think the background provides justification, rather than just opinion.
The self-infantilization trap starts young and it sets young people back, like kids who are running a race but have to start behind the kids who aren't inculcated with the victimhood mentality. I find it with feminism too (yeah, I say that like about every single comment I make here, but Jesus or Darwin, victim black people and victim white feminists have so much in common!) The irony is no one will admit they think like a victim, or find their tribe weak and helpless, but you can't focus on the future when you're still carping about the past. How convenient for those who'd like to retain the status quo.