> to something one could be guilty of merely by benefiting from when someone else betrayed the human tribe.
You may not be aware but this is a common alt-right strawman argument opposed to Black Lives Matter. The idea that all white people are vulnerable of being accused of racism simply because of their privilege. It's incorrect, and a strawman of the actual position, which is that silence aids the status quo.
"There comes a time when silence is betrayal."
""First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;"
I also despise the current state of public discourse for the very reason that stating that at the beginning of their post is necessary.
It's impossible for us to know if the poster of the original point is posting in good faith or not (such is the nature of the internet). By noting that it is a common alt-right strawman, and engaging with it anyway, it can help readers understand the meta of discourse that leads many other people to decide _NOT_ to engage with the argument.
The core problem with the discourse that is frustrating us is that people leverage these viewpoints not to generate discussion and mutual learning, but to try and terminate discussion in order to win people over to their side.
The way that the original point terminates discussion is tricky. Feeling "guilty by association" is a perfectly valid feeling. But the implication is, "things that make me feel guilty are not correct", and that can easily terminate a discussion because we have to untangle that first.
Continuing to post in support of the thing that makes someone feel bad is seen as callous, which is why I believe the replier speaking up for BLM is being downvoted. They are ignoring the OPs feelings, which _may_ be valid and real, but it can just as easily be an attempt to redirect the discussion.
Ultimately, feelings of guilt is not something that can really be processed over posts on social media, which is why I wish that the greater HN community would engage less in upvoting "peoples tactics made me feel bad" and more in productive discussion of how to do better than the status quo when it came to racial justice and other social topics.
I really didn't mean for my feelings to be germane in the point I raised. The point I was trying to make - which I feel is being deliberately ignored - is that seeing my fellow humans as 'negros' weakens the project of making a 'human' tribe which doesn't care about race.
I'm not surprised the alt-right raises the same point, but I'd guess it's only raised to point out the hypocrisy. The alt-right is perfectly fine with the 'human' tribe fracturing along racial lines. So, as far as I can tell, is the radical left, the only disagreement I see between the two is how the racial tribes should settle their differences.
So I don't see how it should matter that alt-right people, who are perfectly happy to see more racial division, would make the same criticism I would. Either you have a ready answer or you don't. Suppose 51% of people who make the same argument as me hide a desire for more racial division behind accusations that insisting on 'racial awareness' deepens racial divisions. What does it matter whether I'm one of the 49% who are making that argument in good faith? Do you want more racial division or do you want more human unity? And if you want more human unity, how could my keeping your race constantly in mind do anything but delay your getting what you want?
> Do you want more racial division or do you want more human unity? And if you want more human unity, how could my keeping your race constantly in mind do anything but delay your getting what you want?
Why not both? Human unity doesn't have to mean homogeneity.
The ask isn't to "keep race constantly in mind" but rather "keep the mind actively hunting for its own unconscious biases."
> What does it matter whether I'm one of the 49% who are making that argument in good faith?
Because my time and energy is scarce, and so are other peoples. Why should I oblige someone who is arguing in bad faith the time and energy to deconstruct their argument and build it back up to the level of discourse required to talk about these issues, when they will just continually drain me of whatever reserves I have. That's the point of a bad faith argument; to mask as a legit one in order to drain the opposition.
> Do you want more racial division or do you want more human unity?
I don't think that's even the topic of question. Racial division or unity is not at stake; it's justice and equality. Framing it to be about "unity" is an approach that experience has shown people who have paid attention to racial equality & justice over the last 30 years as _not_ working.
> how could my keeping your race constantly in mind do anything but delay your getting what you want?
Keeping in mind a person's experience as you interact with them is paramount for empathy. For a large portion of people in America, their race is inexorably tied to their experience. You're not being asked to think, "Oh this person is Black, I need to act like X & Y & not Z because the SJW police told me to." You're being asked to think, "Oh this person is Black, I need to understand their experience so I know how to act around them so that they feel safe."
Some people find it helpful to boil these down to rules of thumb, but these are simply tools to help people who are new to empathizing with the experiences of POC to not fuck up as much. Take them at your leisure based on your perceived level of understanding.
Lastly, I'll leave you with a few questions to ponder & research if you feel like it's valuable:
How does a society repair the subtle mechanisms within it that perpetuate racial injustice and inequality?
How does a society acknowledge and celebrate cultures that are different from the majority (as in, without erasing them or forcing them to adopt white culture)?
How does a society enact justice for the communities who have been terrorized and brutalized due to racism perpetrated through people, policy, and the power structure in all areas of the country?
To me, "ignoring race" does not come close to getting to the root of these questions. It is extremely palatable because it requires no work on my part, but experience shows it does not actually bear fruit.
I try to be as generous and good faith as I can, but I'm not the best at it. I tend to point out talking points when I see them because I waste a lot of time arguing on the internet, and so I time and time again will watch a talking head say some red herring or strawman, watch it propagate through Twitter and Reddit, and eventually end up here almost completely unchanged.
It seems important to point these things out when I see them. I want to challenge why someone believes what they believe or is saying what they say. Is "black lives matter means white lives don't matter" what you really believe, or is it something you heard and sounded true to you and thus became embedded in your worldview before you had a chance to really consider the implications there?
Sometimes it feels like public figures, verified Twitter accounts, and massively upvoted comments on Reddit are putting weapons onto a rack in the colliseum of "internet debate," and half the time I'm just finding myself face to face with the exact same sword fifty other people have swung at me... So I just jab back with the exact same spear I've used fifty times before. At that point it doesn't even matter who's wielding the weapon, just that the weapons are endlessly crossing eachother.
You may not be aware but this is a common alt-right strawman argument opposed to Black Lives Matter. The idea that all white people are vulnerable of being accused of racism simply because of their privilege. It's incorrect, and a strawman of the actual position, which is that silence aids the status quo.
"There comes a time when silence is betrayal."
""First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;"