🐱 My brain is racist. Does that mean I am?

CatParty


The “racist” label, applied to any person, place or thing, cuts deep. But what if we understood the moniker not as a scarlet letter of disgrace, but a brain default that we all share? And, more important, a default that we can overcome?

How? The only way our brains know how: Recognize and respond. Every action may well be followed by a reaction, but it must be preceded by recognition. Recognition sparks self-awareness. Self-awareness ignites good leadership.

To wit, there are two primary reasons my brain defaults to racist thinking. (For clarity, I’m invoking Ibram Kendi’s description that, “A racist idea is any idea that suggests that one racial group is inferior to — or superior to — another racial group in any way.”)

Reason No. 1: My life choices have been informed by a bounty of opportunities, experiences and privileges. Many I sought or earned, and many I did not. Some simply exist because I am white. For instance, not once has the color of my skin presented a potential barrier to a loan or job. Never has anyone asked what country I’m from or how I wear my hair. My skin color never warrants a second look.

Not having to weigh any one of those factors in the more than 2,000 choices I — and everyone — makes every waking hour impacts my deeds and decisions. As a result, the very neural pathways that make me me have formed largely without my conscious awareness of, let alone questioning, what it means to be white. I think therefore I am. And what I am is continuously shaped and reshaped by both my reflexive and reflectivethoughts and actions. These thoughts and actions create my brain’s default settings. Repetition strengthens them.

How do these same default settings lead to racist thinking? I feel better not having to be the spokesperson for every fair-skinned woman in the office; not having to mollify white colleagues who feel guilty about their own or others’ unintentional slights. In other words, I feel better off in my whiteness. In most dictionaries, “superior” is synonymous with “better.” Do these feelings make me racist? Not necessarily, but they root me in a racist system, and therefore I am capable of racist thoughts and ideas. These thoughts afford me the privilege of having privilege. To paraphrase Peggy McIntosh, noted author and white privilege theorist, I have accepted a career’s worth of promotions without worrying that peers suspect I got them because of my race.

Does this mean I’m a bad leader — or person? No, but it means I’m human. To be human is to be sentient but also capable of change. To change, however, I must first willingly recognize the ways in which my brain has been molded and influenced by my race.

Reason No. 2: Everything we perceive enters the brain as a sensation, keeping our brains constantly guessing using already existing contexts. Its emotion control center, the amygdala, receives these incoming sensations far beneath conscious awareness and dictates — multiple times per second — whether we have the luxury to pause and ponder, or should react and defend. The brain accomplishes this feat, in part, by recognizing (or not) the familiar. Our brains crave patterns and predictability like our bodies crave food.

Myriad studies have substantiated a stronger amygdala (i.e., emotional) response when white people are shown pictures of Black faces. This automatic vigilance response kicks in whenever we perceive the unfamiliar. Since all human beings divide our world into ingroups and outgroups, the same skin color offers the kind of quick and easy shortcut to familiarity that the brain gloms onto for assurance, especially if stress or uncertainty weighs on our coping mechanisms. This study of ingroup and outgroup bias earned Daniel Kahneman a Nobel Prize for the research he conducted with his colleague, Amos Tversky.

Let’s say two resumes cross my desk. One belongs to Sandy, a white woman referred by a trusted colleague, and the other belongs to a Black man, Lee, from a different industry. My brain will likely try to convince me to focus on the more familiar person. The person who “feels” right. The rationale of “fit” might even spring to mind. Is this racist? If I am convincing myself that someone is “better” than someone else without the proper due diligence — then I suggest it is racist. Can I do something about this potentially racist notion? Absolutely. But first, I must recognize my brain’s default settings at work. Only then can I respond most effectively.

The wonderful thing about my racist brain is that I am its boss. I possess the power to recognize when my default settings might be leading me astray, and to respond accordingly. As Kendi says, racist labels are not “permanent tattoos”: “No one becomes a racist or antiracist. We can only strive to be one or the other.”

So, even if my brain tries to convince me that Sandy is a better “fit” for the job, I can counteract these protective measures. I can make sure that she truly meets an objective set of job criteria. I can dig more deeply into Lee’s previous experience to ascertain whether he could be more of an asset to the organization.

The same study that found increased amygdala response among white people when shown pictures of Black faces showed no amygdala increase (i.e., more objectivity) when subjects were asked whether those same Black faces liked vegetables.

A simple, practical question about vegetables released the subjects’ perceptions from the clutches of the emotion-centered amygdala and steered them to the prefrontal cortex, its more reason-centric neighbor. Now, apply this finding to the two job candidates, Sandy and Lee, by substituting a sense about their “fit” for whether each candidate likes vegetables. It may sound simplistic, but this small shift pumps the brain’s braking system just enough to disengage any default settings. For example, asking myself to list specific ways Sandy really is more qualified than Lee may be all it takes to check potentially racist thinking. Job criteria become the vegetables that nurture anti-racist thinking.

Do I want to be racist? Of course not. Will my brain continue to push me in certain directions by favoring its default settings? Yes, our fundamentally lazy brains are bent on preserving energy by seeking the path of least resistance. Good leaders recognize this tendency. They respond accordingly. They choose to overcome.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
You're observing online culture, not culture by state.


I'd wager you didn't have much interface with said cultures, given that it's just about impossible to conceive that states with different demographics, histories, interests and needs would develop "similar enough" cultures-- especially when you can already classify states according to aggregate party allegiance, and said parties at least ostensibly have diametrically opposed value sets. At the very least, you're dealing with culture regions, but the variances of culture and interests necessitating some way to represent said interests in some kind of proportion is an oft-cited defense of the electoral college.


I used that data in refutation of the statement made in your pamphlet, which purported an aggregate statistic in the first place, in order to make the case that the pamphlet is crap to begin with. I'm of the firm belief that aggregate stats across state lines in a country as expansive and varied as this one is all but useless beyond premising further research.

Indeed, they seem to think that such statistical operation renders the data useful, and I'd be interested in understanding why they think so, since it cannot be so at first blush.
I don't know what cultural factors would necessarily, render aggregation pointless, but since you're positing something that I can't disprove (you opine that such aggregation is not tenable, I think it is) that also invalidates my data, I'll have to stop arguing here.
If you call the USA a monoculture you're a fucking moron and everything, I mean EVERYTHING you say should be promptly discarded because you know jack and fucking SHIT about the USA. I had serious culture shock between DIFFERENT CITIES IN THE SAME STATE.
Oh, no, I wouldn't say that the USA is a monoculture, I just think that the differences wouldn't be great enough to render aggregation of data across state lines useless. I know that even two bordering states can have very different cultures. In my experience, this difference wouldn't be enough to render aggregation invalid.
 
Oh, no, I wouldn't say that the USA is a monoculture, I just think that the differences wouldn't be great enough to render aggregation of data across state lines useless.
Well, you thought fucking wrong.
 
I don't know what cultural factors would necessarily, render aggregation pointless
The presence of distinct cultures would necessitate having to demonstrate that the cultural differences wouldn't yield a great enough difference as to render aggregation non-illustrative.

I've already brought up the example of Northern blacks versus Southern blacks post-Civil War to demonstrate that.
 
The presence of distinct cultures would necessitate having to demonstrate that the cultural differences wouldn't yield a great enough difference as to render aggregation non-illustrative.

I've already brought up the example of Northern blacks versus Southern blacks post-Civil War to demonstrate that.
Granted, you are the one who said initially that the difference in culture would render aggregation non-illustrative and therefore the burden of proof would rest on you to prove that. I'm of the opinion that such arguments over whether aggregation is viable or not is an opinion or at least difficult to objectively prove, so I'll leave it at: federal entities do perform this aggregation, implying that said federal entities believe that such aggregation is a viable thing to do.
 
Granted, you are the one who said initially that the difference in culture would render aggregation non-illustrative and therefore the burden of proof would rest on you to prove that.
Alright, brainiac, how many white people generally become "Kill Haole Day"-beating victims in the New England area?
 
Alright, brainiac, how many white people generally become "Kill Haole Day"-beating victims in the New England area?
Probably zero. Is that related to black crime? Would that be a confounding variable to the assertion that genetics plays a role in behavior, or the original assertion that people intuitively avoid others, which somehow ended up in this nightmare of an argument?
 
Probably zero. Is that related to black crime? Would that be a confounding variable to the assertion that genetics plays a role in behavior, or the original assertion that people intuitively avoid others, which somehow ended up in this nightmare of an argument?
You absolute fucking retard. You ask for a reason why national aggregates wouldn't be useful. I gave you one. "BUT ITZ NOT ABOUT NIGGERZ"

Go play in traffic, you absolute fucking imbecile.
 
Granted, you are the one who said initially that the difference in culture would render aggregation non-illustrative and therefore the burden of proof would rest on you to prove that.
You already accepted the premise that a difference in culture would render stat aggregation non-illustrative. However, you reasoned afterwards that in this case, the cultures of which we speak aren't substantially different such that aggregation would not be illustrative. It falls on you to prove that assertion, but you haven't done that well so far.
I'm of the opinion that such arguments over whether aggregation is viable or not is an opinion or at least difficult to objectively prove, so I'll leave it at: federal entities do perform this aggregation, implying that said federal entities believe that such aggregation is a viable thing to do.
A useless appeal to authority, yeah? Those federal entities are far from infallible and you aren't even referencing their logic for organizing data the way they do. You just need me to think that there's validity to how organize data because they do it.
 
You absolute fucking retard. You ask for a reason why national aggregates wouldn't be useful. I gave you one. "BUT ITZ NOT ABOUT NIGGERZ"

Go play in traffic, you absolute fucking imbecile.
You already accepted the premise that a difference in culture would render stat aggregation non-illustrative. However, you reasoned afterwards that in this case, the cultures of which we speak aren't substantially different such that aggregation would not be illustrative. It falls on you to prove that assertion, but you haven't done that well so far.

A useless appeal to authority, yeah? Those federal entities are far from infallible and you aren't even referencing their logic for organizing data the way they do. You just need me to think that there's validity to how organize data because they do it.
The question being a matter of whether the cultures are substantially different enough to cause such aggregation to be pointless is something that you answered with anecdotes that I don't find satisfying.

Yes, I did make an appeal to authority, but at the same time, how would one quantify a cultural difference and whether it makes such things untenable? Then the issue is thus: if the data is irrelevant, then even my original postulation is irrelevant as it was made with data using national arguments. Since this was describing one of the reasons people have an autonomic response to black people as outlined in the OP, the best that could be said is that my original assertion was invalid.
 
The question being a matter of whether the cultures are substantially different enough to cause such aggregation to be pointless is something that you answered with anecdotes that I don't find satisfying.

Yes, I did make an appeal to authority, but at the same time, how would one quantify a cultural difference and whether it makes such things untenable? Then the issue is thus: if the data is irrelevant, then even my original postulation is irrelevant as it was made with data using national arguments. Since this was describing one of the reasons people have an autonomic response to black people as outlined in the OP, the best that could be said is that my original assertion was invalid.
I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SATISFYING YOU BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE SATISFIED WITH ANYTHING BUT "IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NIGGERS"
 
I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SATISFYING YOU BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE SATISFIED WITH ANYTHING BUT "IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NIGGERS"
You provided 2 anecdotes that don't particularly look connected to crime. How am I supposed to find that satisfying? I'm not beholden to fish through every archive to dig up crime rates by race state by state. Could I do that? Yes. Should I do that? Yes. Will I do that? No, because I have other things to do besides argue how violent blacks are on a fucking retard observation forum's autism containment zone.
 
You provided 2 anecdotes that don't particularly look connected to crime.
Assault and battery is no longer a crime now. You heard it here first, folks.
I'm not beholden to fish through every archive to dig up crime rates by race state by state.
I'm not obligated to spoonfeed you.
Could I do that? Yes. Should I do that? Yes. Will I do that? No, because I have other things to do at the moment.
If you don't care enough to investigate it yourself I sure as fuck don't care enough to explain it any further than I already have.
 
The question being a matter of whether the cultures are substantially different enough to cause such aggregation to be pointless is something that you answered with anecdotes that I don't find satisfying.
But you also answered with anecdotes. Additionally, I also made a logical argument for the inherent complicating value of cultural differences that needs to be disproven in a given case in order to meaningfully combine data into aggregates, whereas you only provided an anecdote as well as some concessions.
Yes, I did make an appeal to authority, but at the same time, how would one quantify a cultural difference and whether it makes such things untenable?
Cultural differences are inherently a complicating factor in this kind of analysis, which is why we're talking about the actual substance of those differences.
 
I posted in another thread that I'm seeing a pretty lefty chick at the moment. In response to her mentioning some of her friends, the white guilt, self-flagellating types, I said they should simply kill themselves.

I mean, I wasn't really joking. If being white is so fucking bad to these people, and pretty much every major ill of modern society, is, in their minds, the fault of white people - why not just off yourself and rid the world of one proponent and progenitor of evil?

I don't see these fucks letting the local desert paedos into their houses to fuck their girlfriends, sleep in their beds, and paying them reparation for historical misdeeds - so how else might they remedy it? Let the punishment fit the crime, by giving their lives to the niggerloving cult of the west.
 
But you also answered with anecdotes. Additionally, I also made a logical argument for the inherent complicating value of cultural differences that needs to be disproven in a given case in order to meaningfully combine data into aggregates, whereas you only provided an anecdote as well as some concessions.

Cultural differences are inherently a complicating factor in this kind of analysis, which is why we're talking about the actual substance of those differences.
Assault and battery is no longer a crime now. You heard it here first, folks.

I'm not obligated to spoonfeed you.

If you don't care enough to investigate it yourself I sure as fuck don't care enough to explain it any further than I already have.
I concede I'll need to do more research on the state level to account for these differences.
 
Yeah but at least in the case of racism, blaming your brain for being lazy due to understanding objective reality is simply retarded.
What your racist brain is doing is pattern recognition + ingroup preference; for your own good, listen to your racist brain. Your ancestors did and that’s part of why you exist today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Antipathy
I posted in another thread that I'm seeing a pretty lefty chick at the moment. In response to her mentioning some of her friends, the white guilt, self-flagellating types, I said they should simply kill themselves.

I mean, I wasn't really joking. If being white is so fucking bad to these people, and pretty much every major ill of modern society, is, in their minds, the fault of white people - why not just off yourself and rid the world of one proponent and progenitor of evil?

I don't see these fucks letting the local desert paedos into their houses to fuck their girlfriends, sleep in their beds, and paying them reparation for historical misdeeds - so how else might they remedy it? Let the punishment fit the crime, by giving their lives to the niggerloving cult of the west.
>arguing with women
>believing women hold rational opinions they came to because of logical arguments, rather than feels/social conformity
lol
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Arm Pit Cream
I posted in another thread that I'm seeing a pretty lefty chick at the moment. In response to her mentioning some of her friends, the white guilt, self-flagellating types, I said they should simply kill themselves.

I mean, I wasn't really joking. If being white is so fucking bad to these people, and pretty much every major ill of modern society, is, in their minds, the fault of white people - why not just off yourself and rid the world of one proponent and progenitor of evil?

I don't see these fucks letting the local desert paedos into their houses to fuck their girlfriends, sleep in their beds, and paying them reparation for historical misdeeds - so how else might they remedy it? Let the punishment fit the crime, by giving their lives to the niggerloving cult of the west.

Same reason the Nihilists who say all human life is futile and morality pointless don't immediately off themselves: they want everyone ELSE to do it first and leave them with more opportunities, you know? Rules for thee? It extends to EVERYTHING. Only OTHER people have enough white guilt to deserve culling from society, the actual complainer/disciple of society's wrongs is immune, naturally, because without them, how would we know who needs shot?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: nigger of the north
If that's all his point is, he doesn't need to post exhibits from sources transparently trying to bring legitimacy to their racism.
I'm not sure where in his posts, up to the point I responded with the post you quoted, he was saying that it was inherently because they were black. Pointing out statistics and statistical anomalies isn't racism. He even went as far as saying shit like:
Obviously, this doesn't mean anything about individual character, but the fact of the matter is, here are the facts,
This is sjw-tier shit. I haven't read past your reply yet in the thread as of writing this, but nothing he said led me to believe that he either is racist himself, or that he was saying anything racist.
 
Back