I think you might want to reflect for a minute on why you thought "but do you know how virulent some of those communities were to just about everyone?" was an appropriate response to a black person talking about their experience of racism. I recognize you believed yourself to be mitigating the effect of your statement by prefacing it with "Not disputing your bad experiences," but I think you'll find that the net effect of your comment is still one of dismissing a black person's lived experience, or at least pulling focus away from it in an unhelpful way.
Hmm... this sounds an awful lot like, "because you're responding to a comment made by a black person, the only acceptable response is one of total agreement". I think you might want to reflect for a minute on the importance of nuance in a discussion, and the net effect of trying to police comments on others' behalf.
I completely believe the commenter's experience, but I also witnessed the opposite a lot (and was deeply encouraged by it), and it's not wrong for me to chime in and point it out. And guess what? Experiencing vitriol on the internet directly contributed to me being more sensitive to things like racism. Although I've been on the receiving end of racist remarks offline, it wasn't until the internet that I caught a glimpse at how hurtful people could truly be. Again, not wrong for me to pipe up about it.
But it is unclear what you are disagreeing with. They never said that there was nothing positive in those communities. So what is the point of your comment? To make sure no one leaves this thread thinking that those communities were a net negative or something? I understand the desire to defend something you were a part of and got something positive out of, but the original commenter isn't criticizing people for enjoying or benefiting from those communities, they are pointing out that they had a clear negative impact on people who were targeted by those types of awful comments.
It’s unclear because you’ve concocted it. You’re asserting that there’s disagreement when there never was. I don’t strictly blame you for perpetuating ill rhetoric, but at least be aware that you’re responding to a stance that the comment in question never took in a fever to defend a black OP that never asked for any help and frankly IMO doesn't need it based on the high quality of their comment.
This is a discussion site, so not every comment needs to fit neatly in a 'agree' or 'disagree' bucket. That said, I'm in agreement with the comment I was replying to, and not actually defending anything at all - I meant for my comment to be taken at face value, nothing more.
> this sounds an awful lot like, "because you're responding to a comment made by a black person, the only acceptable response is one of total agreement"
This is clearly a strawman. I wrote nothing remotely like what you're describing. I asked you to think about what prompted you to redirect the conversation away from a black person's experience of racism and towards whatever your idea of an injustice was. My hope was that upon such reflection, you might realize that black people experience these sorts of microagressions and dismissals routinely, and that such things add salt to the wounds caused by racism.
Instead, you went the fragility route. There couldn't possibly be something for you to learn here. No, instead, you have to create a strawman to protect your fragile ego from the idea that maybe you did something hurtful to someone, inadvertently or otherwise.
> Hmm... this sounds an awful lot like, "because you're responding to a comment made by a black person, the only acceptable response is one of total agreement".
Not true. There is another acceptable response - not posting, taking some time to read and reflect, and moving along with your day.
You no doubt have any number of other things you could be doing, but you’re in here. Might be worth thinking about why that is.
> You no doubt have any number of other things you could be doing, but you’re in here. Might be worth thinking about why that is.
Obviously this applies to you as well. Maybe you've taken what I wrote as some sort of disagreement or getting defensive or... something? And then from there concluding that I shouldn't be allowed to participate? I'm not sure, but this is a discussion site and I'm participating in the discussion, and please don't take this the wrong way, but it's really not your place to tell me that I shouldn't participate. My original comment was in agreement with the poster I was replying to, and I was adding nuance and finding common ground in a semi-shared experience. None of that is wrong for me to do. Have a great day!
> My original comment was in agreement with the poster I was replying to, and I was adding nuance and finding common ground in a semi-shared experience.
Do you genuinely not see how "adding nuance" to a "semi-shared experience" is taking the focus away from the parent commenter's experience? When someone is recounting racism they suffered, how is adding "other people experienced other kinds of hate" adding any nuance? Do you genuinely believe that there's valuable common ground between, for example, a black person being called the n-word and another person who isn't black being called the n-word or some other slur?
> Obviously this applies to you as well. Maybe you've taken what I wrote as some sort of disagreement or getting defensive or... something? And then from there concluding that I shouldn't be allowed to participate?
You're allowed to participate, but I trust you can understand that in many situations there is a difference between what discourse is permitted in a space, and what discourse others might see as appropriate or a value add to the discussion.
> I'm not sure, but this is a discussion site and I'm participating in the discussion, and please don't take this the wrong way, but it's really not your place to tell me that I shouldn't participate.
Hmm, it is your place to be able to post whatever you like as long as it's permitted by the rules, but it's not the place of others to suggest doing so might not be appropriate, even if that is also permitted. Kind of a narcissistic, authoritarian mindset, it seems to me. Note that I didn't post "mods???" or report you.
Anyway, you seem to have misunderstood by initial and subsequent comments, so other than rereading them in good faith until you believe me when I say that I was neither disagreeing with the comment, nor trying to undermine his experience, nor defending bad stuff online, I don't think we can make any progress, so I'm moving on to other things. Have a great day!
> the only acceptable response is one of total agreement
That's not exactly it. The only informed response about a black person's experience on these platforms is a black person's. When people talk about "lived experience," the implication is that empathy is practically impossible. The best you can offer is sympathy.
> I've been on the receiving end of racist remarks offline
I am a white person who has been on the receiving end of racially-motivated police brutality. Even though it was racially-motivated I would not consider it a racist act. The fucker was merely angry at white people, that's different to racism. While there are places on the planet where white people experience racism (typically at the hands of other white people), I can almost guarantee that you have not - especially if you are American.
Don't wash the black community's suffering with white experiences.
> The best you can offer is sympathy.
> I can almost guarantee that you have not [experienced racism] - especially if you are American.
My goodness! How can you honestly make such an assertion? I am American, I've visited every state and lived in a dozen of them. I am well-acquainted with many forms of racism and am fascinated that you could believe such a statement. All I can say is that you are unequivocally wrong.
> Don't wash the black community's suffering with white experiences.
This is absurd - finding common ground is the key to rooting out and overcoming things like racism. Always insisting that someone's experience is too different for others to understand only serves to perpetuate division.
I will never know what it's like to be a black person and all of the stupid things black people have to up with. But experiencing unkindness and bigotry helps me understand a little. And while having just a couple of experiences where someone judged me and was cruel to me simply for being white is nowhere near the same thing as dealing with it for years, it's something I can extrapolate from, and it taught me more about racism than any number of books or articles ever could.
> You, as a white person, have been a victim of racism?
Have I been told to leave somewhere because they don't want "whiteys" there? Yes. Have I been yelled at for being a "honky"? Yes. Have I been told things like, "all white people are ___"? Yes. Have I been in a group when someone said, "don't give any to the white kid" ? Yes. Have I been threatened with violence with the sole given reason being that I am white? Yes. Has a friend of mine been told not to be my friend because I'm white and we shouldn't mix? Yes.
(for reference, these occurred while living in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia)
Are these common experiences across the U.S.? I doubt it. Are they as bad as what black people have to deal with? No. Are they as widespread as racism towards black people? Almost certainly not.
> How is refuting the experiences of a black person finding common ground?
I haven't done that at all - maybe you read some other comment and thought it was mine? If so, no worries for the confusion, there's a lot of comments flying around.
Why do some black people hate white people? Because their great grandparent perished on a cotton plantation, because their friend was hunted by some white folks in a truck, because their friend was choked to death by a white policeman, because your race is targeted by disenfranchisement.
Why do some white people hate black people? Because they hate black people.
There is a substantial difference between those two, and the difference is central to the definition of racism vs. racially-charged. Someone being a vengeful asshole does not make them racist, someone being an asshole to a race in general does not (necessarily) make them racist. Racism is hating a race, it is not being angry with a race that participated in horrific acts against you and your (in some cases near) ancestors.
Is it fair that you are being held accountable for the acts of your ancestors, and other living white people? No, that isn't the claim. You find the retribution you face unfair/unkind/unjust, as you have the right to. Now imagine facing the same for merely existing. The claim is that you couldn't possibly understand the experiences of a black person. The claim is that you do kinda' have to accept the stories of black people at face value.
The claim is that the vast majority of their life is defined by racist experiences, where you have a handful of racially-charged experiences to point towards.
You're conflating racism with the reasons for racism.
It doesn't matter how good or bad your reasons are: once you are feeling or expressing prejudice simply because someone is a member of a particular ethnic group, that's racist.
I won't be paying any more attention to this thread. I have evidently engaged in a fool's errand. If you continue to disagree with me and my learned viewpoint (I once believed that my police brutality experience was racism) then it is likely my fault for not being able to adequately convey this viewpoint. I can't see a way for me to express it any other way, so this discussion is pointless.
I have gone from your current viewpoint to my current viewpoint, because I was wrong. I won't be changing my mind to what I used to believe, now that I understand just how wrong I was.
Best of luck! If you do care to revisit the topic, I urge you to start with focusing on what racism actually is and isn't. Specifically, a racist act or thought isn't non-racist just because there is a "good" argument for it.
If you can get past that idea, then a lot of how we can fight racism follows pretty naturally (and, by extension, it becomes more clear that at least some of what is happening today in the name of fighting racism actually engenders it).
And to counter your claim here - someone's "lived experience" is not a sufficient ballast for blindly accepting an anecdote.
People's memories suck. And more often than not subjective experiences don't map onto reality, especially when negative or stressful emotions are involved.
One negative experience on an IRC/forum can cloud a person's entire recollection simply on the basis of the Negativity Bias.
The point isn't to figure out whether these communities were a net positive or negative. I wasn't a target of any of the racism, sexism, homophobia, etc on these forums and chat rooms but I sure saw a lot of it everywhere I participated at a level that was kind of ridiculous in some cases. It clearly had impact on the people it was targeting, the degree to which it "clouds a persons recollection" is entirely irrelevant.
Is your point that their recollection should be dismissed? That they were too sensitive? It's unclear what this response's intent is.
I think you might want to reflect for a minute that you are playing the exact DEI game that the OP is complaining about. You are dismissing your parent post's argument without addressing content of the argument. Essentially, your post boils down to "Don't argue with Black people. "Lived Experience" trumps all rhetoric and discussion. In the future, please keep your thoughts and concerns to yourself."
You are fostering a culture without room for discussion. You are also presuming to speak for the Black person two posts up. Solidarity is important, but shutting people down based on racial context isn't it.
I was not engaging with the argument made by the post I replied to because the poster's argument is completely beside the point.
When someone says "I experienced racism because I'm black," the appropriate response is not "Well, actually, lots of people who aren't black experienced that terrible thing." So what if lots of non-black people experienced that terrible thing? That's not what we're talking about here. Your statement is re-centering the conversation away from the black person who's describing their experience. And you know what? It's the black people who are being routinely discriminated against, incarcerated, and killed because of racism, so maybe it's irrelevant to say "my feelings were hurt on IRC too."
> but I think you'll find that the net effect of your comment is still one of dismissing a black person's lived experience
Pointing out that those venues were full of anti-everything hate is not dismissing a black person's experience, it's validating it, while pointing out that he's not alone.
Hate directed at black people, who have been exploited, oppressed, enslaved, killed, and more for over 400 years has a more significant and problematic impact than hate directed at other, more privileged groups. Recentering the conversation away from the black person's experience is a form of dismissal, not validation.
An abuser on IRC calling a black person the n-word is objectively more harmful than an abuser on IRC calling pretty much anyone else pretty much any slur.
I reject the claim that such a response is recentering the conversation, and I also reject the implicit assumption that words can be objectively harmful.
For instance, a black person might be reasonably angry at hearing the n-word, until they find out the person suffers from Tourette's, at which point the "harm" vanishes. The harm clearly did not result from the word but from the framing of the situation, and the framing exists entirely within the mind and can be changed.
This pattern of harm resulting from framing is seen repeatedly throughout psychology. Of course we should still push for relegating incorrect and outdated framings, like the various -isms, to the dustbin of history, but there's considerably more latitude for how to do this than naive language policing like is commonly suggested.
> Pointing out that those venues were full of anti-everything hate is not dismissing a black person's experience, it's validating it, while pointing out that he's not alone.
But it implicitly implies the negative experiences were similar in scale unless otherwise noted.
It downplays the very large weight that racism adds to the negativity of that experience even if the intent is a noble one of making that person not feel alone.
Or, maybe you’re the one projecting negativity for assuming that the existence of another anecdote downplays the black one in play? I give it no such credence.
Being dismissive of the experiences of members of oppressed groups is objectively more harmful than being dismissive of someone not part of a similarly oppressed group.
