I'd like to remind people that heterodox implies atypical or even fringe.
It tells you nothing about reasonableness or correctness.
"Here's this heterodox black person that has a different opinion about racism than you do" reflects way less on me than some people may think.
Tells me some stuff about the person using the argument though.
Really interesting how Identity Politics and Standpoint Epistemology are embraced by those looking to their favorite black people to help them dismiss racism.
The "black friend" is one of the most enduring narratives in the racism discourse, and it's funny how many people think it's an absolute defense.
This thread reminds me of the time "a very serious person" argued that blackface shouldn't be seen as racist, and as evidence, pointed out that John McWhorter agreed with them. Y'all. 🤦🏾♂️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Even today, our kids generally say "the s word" when referring to the word "stupid".
We don't allow them to call anyone that in any sense. They can refer to things that way, but not people.
My wife and I swear, in my case rarely. We almost never swear in the presence of our kids, and when we do they call us out on it.
I'm not making any moral judgment with this, just thinking of how differently even good parents parent.
Derogatory references to people just seem like something we don't want to encourage. If they truly mean to refer to a person under that derogatory term then it's legitimate, but they better be prepared to defend that use or face consequences.
Some argue you must abide offensive speech, because freedom. They also argue you must not use your speech in retaliation, because freedom.
I remain convinced that all sides just want to set their own boundaries on socially acceptable speech, but only one side insists they want to constrain the speech of others in the name of free speech.
There was a time I would argue that side would only socially constrain the speech of others using speech, a tactic I believe to be fair.
But over the last few years, I've realized a tremendous willingness to support the use of state power to constrain speech.
If there was a movement to have Spotify remove sexist or racist content, I'd support it.
The free market can be used for good things too.
Let's see how long before someone comes in and calls me an authoritarian or illiberal... because I support using the free market for something good.
The free market shouldn't only be used for exploiting the poor and marginalized.
I remember one time someone was insisting on his right to use the n-word because rappers do. He then asked if I preferred he boycotted such music. I said "yes, and I'd support you!"
He proceeded to call me names like illiberal and authoritarian.
So now anyone who suggests black students are less qualified for elite schools, or black workers for management jobs, is engaging in racism.
All those who suggest black biological or cultural inferiority are now being racist.
All those who suggest black biological or cultural inferiority are now engaging in racism according to the Anti-Defamation League.
All those who assume black people are less intelligent or capable, are engaging in racism.
I know some like it because it also labels attempt to address the impacts of racism are racist, but they rarely want their assumptions of inferiority to be labeled racism.
Because social race isn't fixed, a person *can* transition between races as socially labeled. If within one social circle a person presents and is racialized as race X and in another circle as race Y, then both labels are concurrently valid socially.
Of course, all of this is built on this truth about social race. It's a label placed upon us that we chose to recognize and others can recognize too
So nothing prevents multiple, even conflicting labels within different circles. Nothing prevents fluidity