←back to thread

677 points saeedjabbar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.242s | source
Show context
hn_throwaway_99 ◴[] No.23544053[source]
I thought this was a great article. One of the most interesting things to me was how the embarrassment/defensiveness of the white people involved was one of the biggest blocks to the black CEOs in their advancement, e.g. the VCs who "just wanted to get the hell out of there" after mistaking a white subordinate for the CEO.

I've recently been reading/watching some videos and writings by Robin Diangelo on systemic racism - here's a great starting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7mzj0cVL0Q. She also wrote the book "White Fragility".

Thinking about that, I'm just wondering how different it would be if one of those people who mistook the employee for the CEO instead turned to the CEO and said "I'm sorry, please excuse me for the instance of racism I just perpetrated against you, I promise it won't happen again." I realize how outlandish that may sound writing that out, but I'd propose that the fact that it does sound outlandish is the main problem. Everyone in the US was raised in an environment that inculcated certain racial ideas, subconsciously or not. We can't address them if we're so embarrassed by their existence as to pretend they don't exist.

replies(22): >>23544136 #>>23544188 #>>23544280 #>>23544344 #>>23544345 #>>23544384 #>>23544423 #>>23544456 #>>23544643 #>>23544857 #>>23545414 #>>23545975 #>>23546597 #>>23546614 #>>23546741 #>>23546766 #>>23546819 #>>23547024 #>>23547096 #>>23547756 #>>23548377 #>>23549659 #
chongli ◴[] No.23544456[source]
I think the trouble here is the double meaning of the word racist. When some people hear the word, they think of cross-burning fanatics and mass murderers. On the other hand, the current big conversation is about how everyone is racist and that society is rife with systemic racism.

That creates a catch-22 for anyone who commits a faux-pas (like mistaking the black CEO for a subordinate). Either admit to racism and cast oneself in with the cross-burners, or bail out of the situation ASAP.

We have the same kind of problem with the label of "sex offender." It's a category that runs the gamut from "guy who got arrested for public urination while walking home drunk from the bar one night" all the way to Jeffrey Dahmer.

Scott over at Slate Star Codex has a fantastic piece that covers this phenomenon [1]. The core idea has to do with the tension between central and non-central examples of a category:

Remember, people think in terms of categories with central and noncentral members – a sparrow is a central bird, an ostrich a noncentral one. But if you live on the Ostrich World, which is inhabited only by ostriches, emus, and cassowaries, then probably an ostrich seems like a pretty central example of ‘bird’ and the first sparrow you see will be fantastically strange.

I'm glad we're having this conversation in society. I honestly don't know what to do about it though.

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap...

replies(8): >>23544521 #>>23544590 #>>23545085 #>>23545631 #>>23545817 #>>23547924 #>>23548107 #>>23549186 #
birdyrooster ◴[] No.23545085[source]
Try approaching someone in denial about their alcoholism and talk about alcoholism they will act very similarly. These people need rehab.
replies(1): >>23545409 #
SpicyLemonZest ◴[] No.23545409[source]
I think that's a reasonable analogy but I draw the opposite conclusion from it. If you divide the world into alcoholics who need rehab and normal people who don't, you end up with a lot of people who refuse to admit they have a drinking problem because they don't want to pay the social costs of doing so.
replies(1): >>23547688 #
1. catalogia ◴[] No.23547688[source]
Something many alcoholics and nearly all non-alcoholics have in common is they deny being alcoholics.

P(Alcoholism|Denial of Alcoholism) = P(Denial of Alcoholism|Alcoholism) * P(Alcoholism) / P(Denial of Alcoholism)

Pop in any reasonable numbers for those terms and it becomes readily apparent that denial of alcoholism does not constitute meaningful evidence of alcoholism.