In Which a Bunch of White People Lecture Me on the Black Experience and I Am “Outed” as a Casual Racist

I’ve made a real effort in recent years to avoid getting into any political debates or arguments online, for what are probably obvious reasons to anyone who has ever engaged in them. So I was completely unprepared for the level to which online discussions had sunk in my absence.
I wouldn’t ordinarily write an entire blog post about a conversation I’d had on Facebook – certainly not one as deeply stupid as this conversation became – but I think there’s something important to be learned from this particular exchange. I see it as sort of a snapshot of what is going on all over the country right now. So I hope you’ll bear with me.
Here’s what happened: My friend (who I’ll call “Veronique”) wrote a post where she tried to explain the insensitivity of saying “all lives matter” in response to the Black Lives Matter movement, with an analogy to babies who have Down Syndrome:
“If I started a campaign/movement to save babies with DS from abortion and called it ‘Down Syndrome Lives Matter’ – would you be up in arms? Would you argue with me that all babies lives matter and try to negate my purpose in saving babies with Down Syndrome from the 92% selective abortion rate?”
I thought she made a good point, and I “liked” her post. I saw that someone else (I’ll call him “Pete”) had commented:
I responded with what I thought was a reasonable enough – and fairly innocuous – counterpoint. Here’s what happened:
In fact, I have read quite a bit about “white privilege”. I’ve even written a little about it. Here is why I think “privilege” is not a very good word to use in discussing racial (or gender, etc.) inequality:
“The word “privilege” connotes the possession not only of something one has not earned, but of something one really has no right to. It implies a benefit that has been granted by someone else and that can and perhaps should be revoked by someone else.
“There is something insidious about this. It is an upside-down way of looking at discrimination. Instead of seeing behavior that ends up marginalizing groups of people as the problem, it turns our attention to those who are not marginalized. To declare that they are thereby “privileged” is to hint that they are somehow culpable in the harm that has been done — whether or not any specific individuals ever actually engaged in discriminatory speech or actions themselves.
“Using the word in this way is also to accept bigotry as the default. To assert that not being harmed by discrimination is some kind of “privilege” is to assert that oppression is or should be the norm and suggests, in a manner reminiscent of PC’s Maoist roots, that those who do not suffer from discrimination ought to.
“To declare that non-oppression is a privilege is to lay the intellectual groundwork for bringing everyone down to the level of the oppressed. Wouldn’t empowering everyone be a more noble goal?”
But Pete is about to demonstrate another problem with the term: It has become little more than a bludgeon for shutting down opposing viewpoints or any kind of reasoned debate.
He has this down:
My friend – you remember my friend, the one who wrote the original post? – tries valiantly to defend me, and says she hopes we can all get along and be nice to each other. After this, Pete (still ignoring all of the points I have made thus far) decides to show some civility:
Julie agrees with Pete – which is a little strange to me, because I’m pretty sure I’ve never met Julie, and I’m pretty sure she doesn’t know who my “friends of color” are. I’d like to hear more from her about how my relationships with them aren’t “real”, but I’m kind of afraid to ask.
Meanwhile, I make a mental note to speak with my black friends and gently ask them if they could try to be better “friends of color” and talk with me about the things they are supposed to talk about, so that I can score more Sanctimonious White Person points with my white friends (or, as in this case, with a bunch of white total strangers.) I’ll also ask them to be sure they hold the right opinions on these topics, because as Pete knows, all people of color think exactly alike and have the same opinions on important issues.
So just to catch everyone up:
This entire vitriolic exchange is happening because I said that I don’t believe everyone who says “all lives matter” is an actual racist. Because of that, I am now guilty of “…stupidity, arrogance and hate.”
I am also now someone who doesn’t listen to black people, even though I think that I do. And never mind that there ARE NO ACTUAL BLACK PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN THIS CONVERSATION. Pete has taken it upon himself to speak on their behalf, and anyone who thinks that some black people might think things other than what Pete says they think is… I don’t know. A racist?
My friend (remember?) once again tries to rescue me. But I fear it is too late:
To be clear: I think all “Julie” is accusing me of is excusing casual racism, by refusing to call everyone who says “all lives matter” a racist. She has not yet said that I am guilty of “casual racism.” What is interesting though, is that Julie actually “liked” my initial comment, where I expressed the view that she now refers to as “casual racism.” So now I’m starting to wonder about Julie.
Note that there is no room for discussion here. The question of whether or not everyone who utters the words “all lives matter” is a racist is not up for debate. They have been declared to be racists, and so they are. And anyone who disagrees with that assessment is not “expressing another viewpoint”, but is “excusing casual racism.” Do you see how this works?
Pete has more to say. This time, it’s in the form of a weapon he’s been holding back the whole time: Words from an actual black person:
And I have to say, I’m taken aback. I truly hadn’t realized that failing to call people who say “all lives matter” racist could be so deeply upsetting to someone. I am really astonished at this man’s depth of feeling over this issue…
…Oh wait! He’s not actually talking about this issue at all, but about the recent demonstrations in Charlottesville where actual white supremacists marched in public and spewed actual racist rhetoric:
I make another mental note to ask my friends of color to please provide me with a sampling of quotes that I can pull out in situations like this. The quotes don’t need to be about anything in particular, as long as they are heartfelt. I can use them anywhere. And if my friends of color are “real” friends, they’ll do it for me, right?
I do see Pete’s point though. Shouting “racist” at everyone who sees the world differently than you do is probably a more effective way of getting through to them than is engaging them in a discussion as if they are reasonable human beings. I make another mental note about that.
It occurs to me that what is happening here, between Pete and Julie and me, is almost a kind of communication. It is of course not rational discourse – that would involve at least a pretense of listening to what the other person had said and responding to it. But nobody has responded to any of my arguments, other than to shout at me to check my privilege. And yet some form of communication is going on here. If not rational discourse, then what?
It seems to me that what is going on here is pure signaling. In the same way that ants signal to each other through pheromones, that they belong either to the same nest or to a different (enemy) nest, there is a kind of “communication” that happens in human society that consists of little more than sending signals to alert others as to whose side you are on.
I think I’m starting to get it now. I see what Pete is doing, and I think to myself, “OK, I can play this game too!”
So I try:
I fear my comment might be a little ambiguous, so I elaborate:
Another commenter (I’ll call her Brunhilde) jumps in:
Ladies, take note: Calling out a man on his sexist ways only counts if a lot of other women agree with you.
But I can see what Brunhilde is up to, and I’m going to “call her out” on it:
I’m starting to like this game!
Brunhilde doesn’t though:
So here’s another funny thing: Brunhilde ALSO “liked” my initial comment where I said that not everyone who says “all lives matter” is racist. But now she says I’ve been “called out” for my “casual racism”. I’m not sure where this happened, but it had to be somewhere between my initial comment and this last one. Yet I can’t find it. Looking back over the conversation, I see a lot of vaguely worded non-sequitors about “white people” and “racism”, but nothing about anything I’ve said or done being racist. Which only leaves my initial comments. Which Brunhilde “liked”. So now I’m starting to wonder about Brunhilde too…
Notice that Brunhilde has not been bothered by any of the vitriol directed at me throughout this conversation. I wonder why that is. Notice also that she stops just short of saying that she will pray for me. Wow, Brunhilde’s not enjoying this game at all!
But Pete’s back:
And now I truly am floored. I’m not sure how I expected Pete to react to my attempt to take the crazy up a notch in an already batshit conversation. I thought maybe he’d be angry at me for making fun of him. But this… I am tempted to feel bad for what I’ve said.
But then I realize that all he’s doing is more signaling. He’s Saying the Right Things when “called out” because it is literally the only thing he knows to do. And he has no choice but to Say the Right Things, because not to do so would blow the whole “calling out” game out of the water. I have no idea what Pete really thinks about what I’ve said, and he probably doesn’t either.
I realize then that my mistake lay in trying to satirize something that had already gone well beyond the limits of satire.
So why does this matter? Why have I just spent nearly 2,000 words, and why have you spent whatever time you’ve just spent, re-hashing one of the most unbelievably stupid conversations in the history of humankind?
Here’s why: Because what happened in this conversation is happening all over the country. It’s in the news, it’s on university campuses, it’s probably in a lot of the conversations you and I engage in every day. And I think it’s important for people to understand what’s going on. As I wrote above, it is a kind of “communication”, but more akin to the communication that occurs between insects than the kind that is required to build and maintain human civilization.
So here’s what happened in this conversation: I was a newcomer here. I only knew one other person, my friend who had written the original post. And when I joined in, I failed to send out the proper signals to let the others know whose “side” I was on. I also didn’t back down from my position and even argued with some of them, and I think, in a very base, very primitive part of the brain, that made me seem like some kind of threat.
So at some point in the conversation – pretty early on, I think – the substance of what I said no longer mattered. What mattered was that I wasn’t making the right noises, or sending out the proper tribal signals, to reassure everyone that I was a part of their larger “tribe” of “right-thinking people.” And without those reassurances, that base part of their brains concluded that I must be the enemy.
This is what tribal behavior looks like. It is what mob behavior looks like. It is groupthink at its ugliest, it is “us vs. them”, it is the rejection of reason in favor of base tribal allegiances and signaling. It is base, it is divisive, and it is destructive of human relationships and civilized coexistence.
There is a word for this kind of thinking. And Pete and Julie (probably also Brunhilde) wouldn’t like it.
SaveSave
Bretigne Shaffer's Truth and Fiction
Fiction and commentary about the beauty of civilization and the evils of the coercive state
In Which a Bunch of White People Lecture Me on the Black Experience and I Am “Outed” as a Casual Racist
Join The Discussion
11 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Rick Rule September 1, 2017 , 9:52 pm
I’ve had this surreal experience of reading this article immediately after hosting a Skype call with a group of young African ( not Afro American) libertarians from four African countries. Without going into detail, their views are different from the ones expressed by the weird whites in this article.
Bretigne Shaffer September 1, 2017 , 10:00 pm Vote2
Hmmm… sounds like they may not be real Africans.
Rick Rule September 1, 2017 , 10:11 pm
@bretigneshaffer a very amusing experience. I’ll show them your article, which I guarantee will elicit gails of bewildered laughter
Chase Gielda September 1, 2017 , 10:12 pm Vote1
Great snap shot of how the bar of being called racist is so low, anyone could practically trip over it. How do we improve race relations with white people holding these irrational views? “Pete” is certainly not helping.
Meme iself September 2, 2017 , 3:10 pm Vote1
“If I started a campaign/movement to save babies with DS from abortion and called it ‘Down Syndrome Lives Matter’ – would you be up in arms? Would you argue with me that all babies lives matter and try to negate my purpose in saving babies with Down Syndrome from the 92% selective abortion rate?”
Frankly yes, I would point out the double standard. But in doing so, why would I be ‘ trying to negate ‘ your purpose, how does that follow?
That implication does not come from the person pointing out such double standard, but from the author of the above comment. The assumption attempts to tie observation of fact to a particular type of advocacy, and fails.
” I Think what they’re saying is: ” I don’t recognize the systemic problems that make it necessary to say ” Black lives matter”
No, what they are saying is that they don’t recognize the need to make a distinction between black and white lives. Those who insist on the distinction, that’s on them, they must accept what follows.
” I know people who have said it who are NOT racist, but who are just kind of clueless.”
Some clues:
Blacks kill tens of thousands more whites every year than po-lice kill blacks, let alone blacks killed by civilian whites.
The black on white rape rate is in the tens of thousands each year in the U.S. the white on black rape rate is typically less than ten.
Over ninety percent of black murder victims are killed by blacks.
A black person is safer in a racist white neighborhood than they are in some black communities.
Black adult males are about three percent of the population, yet commit approximatley half the homicides, and the majority of other violent crimes.
I’m tired of some libertarians playing fast and loose with statistics, trying to fudge the picture, a picture than many whites who live around black neighborhoods know only too well.
In the U.S. it’s possible that a white person is more likely to be killed by another white, only if they live in an almost exclusively white community. Japanese people commit a higher percentage of murders and rapes in Japanese cities than blacks in Detroit do. Does that mean Japanese people are more dangerous to be around? no. There’s a lot less murder and rape in Japanese cities.
The number one cause of homicide among whites is, according to some statistics, spousal murder. That’s not very nice, but I don’ t have to worry about it walking down the road at night, it’s not a reason not to let kids play outside. The second highest cause is organised ( what it implies ) crime. But white organised criminals usually only kill people that are connected to them in some way. You could live down the road from Tony Soprano and be perfectly safe. You could live down the road from an outlaw biker gang, and be safer than living in or around a black neighborhood. These criminals are not motivated to leave you alone because of any moral code, they are simply smart enough to know it is not in their interest.
To be a white living around some black neighborhoods, is to risk being subjected to acts of random savage violence, often during the daytime, in public, by people with iqs around the cut-off point for mental retardation who can’t even be counted on to be dissuaded by the potential victim taking appropriate precautions to shift the perception of risk/reward, on behalf of their potential assailant. They often don’t even have the presence of mind to avoid being caught, and the motive isn’t even always robbery, it’s often simply the assailants idea of sadistic fun.
Police kill more white people every year than blacks. Blacks are far more likely to be confrontational in government mercenary encounters than whites. You can argue about the morality of their resistance, you cannot argue about the intelligence and inevitable result of it, nor the inevitable statistical outcome.
The initial response to ‘black lives matter” was overwhelmingly supportive, even from many of the alt-right types who went on to support Trump. Even if many only did it to highlight how little Obama seemed to care.
The war on drugs started as a war on blacks, who have a legitimate beef with their mostly black and Democratic party city leaders. Not with rural and suburban whites.
Bad government policy is responsible for many, if not most of the problems within the black community. But not all of them.
The black lives matter movement, not only didn’t seem to care about crime statistics, many actively support the idea of wholesale slaughter of whites by blacks. And then they demand sympathy?
Many in the black communities saw the protests as nothing more than an excuse to riot and loot. And murder. The murder and violent crime rate among blacks, soared during the BLM protests. One would think that the political climate would engender a spirit of solidarity. It did not, it manifested not as a concern for black lives, but as a hatred for whites.
This reality, laid bare for all, is what gutted much of the initial sympathy. It’s clear where the blame lies.
As a libertarian and non-racial separatist, I believe in libertarian solutions to these problems. I also believe that in order to do this, these problems must be recognized. Many blacks recognize them, why can’t whites?
One can keep insisting on making distinctions between black lives, and others, but they should not be surprised when facts they do not like are introduced on the basis of a distinction they insisted upon making.
As long as some insist upon making said distinctions, they must accept the implications of doing so.
Craig Spencer September 5, 2017 , 3:59 am
I am SO glad I don’t live in the US. I don’t have to deal with such weird, mentally disfunctional people.
Charles Barton September 5, 2017 , 2:55 pm Vote3
Should’ve jumped on “Pete” for “Man-splaining” when he called you “dear”… HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
(Always LOVE your articles!)
David Afton September 9, 2017 , 3:32 pm Vote1
Being white and accused of racism in America is, ipso facto, proof of one’s racism. Sort of like how, in communist USSR or China back in the day (or Cuba today), merely being arrested or accused of being an enemy of the state, was itself proof of your guilt; denials or protestations of innocence only served to strengthen the State’s case against you.
I believe similar phenomena of self-proving guilt can be seen elsewhere throughout history, e.g. during the Salem Witch Trials of the 17th century…perhaps accusations of apostacy or homosexuality in Sharia-Law Islamic nations today, etc.
Randall Chester Saunders September 18, 2017 , 8:15 pm Vote0
Hi Bretigne,
Why in the world do you care what the ignorant and crude of say? Not one of those people were worth addressing.
In truth no life matters. Nothing just matters. A thing or a life has to have some value or meaning to matter. The idea that a life matters just because it exists is wrong.
The article, “Decent People Matter,” explains why, but I sure wouldn’t waste my time debating it with anyone.
Randy
Randall Chester Saunders September 18, 2017 , 8:30 pm Vote0
Hi Craig,
“I am SO glad I don’t live in the US. I don’t have to deal with such weird, mentally disfunctional people.”
I understand, but it’s not the US, it’s only those places normal people do not visit, like that land of crazies called Facebook and other places the mentally defective congregate, mostly the larger cities. Here in Greenville, SC, I have friends of every possible hue and they all laugh, when not just digusted, at all the pc racist nonsense, because they’re all decent people whose lives really matter.
Read my racist story, “Jamaica.”
Randy
Mike Spettigue November 23, 2017 , 8:36 am Vote2
Bretigne, while I’m all for civil discourse, it was very apparent to me early on in this thread (and I’m saying this in hindsight after reading the entire thread so maybe my opinion would’ve been different otherwise) that Pete was going to accept nothing short of you totally disavowing your opinion, profusely apologizing and begging forgiveness for daring to have an opinion that differed from his (and even then he probably would’ve wanted to know what you intended to do for even daring to have a differing opinion, which also wouldn’t have been good enough).
While I’m in no way saying that social issues are unimportant or that we shouldn’t strive to improve race relations and tolerance in general, I’m basically an “order of operations” guy and the first thing on the political agenda needs to be to get our fiscal house in order and short of doing that, if/when the shit hits the fan the social issues will not only become secondary but most of the progress made will be lost because social tolerance will be the first thing to go when the prevailing social mood is one of uncertainty and fear of if people will be able to feed their families next week or month as was the case in Greece and Spain a few years ago, but I digress.
In the opinion of this non-racist/non-bigoted white male (apparently the top target of social justice warriors everywhere) who has worked his ass off for everything for the modest life my family lives, the moment any person or group unjustifiably vilifies me for the simple fact that I’m white, they lose all credibility and I stop listening. If it’s on TV or the radio, I change the channel. If it’s the description of an online article, I won’t give them a click (which I’m sure makes me racist in their eyes because I refuse to accept ridicule as a precursor to persuasion). While I’m always welcoming of respectful and (hopefully) productive discourse, I will never engage in a conversation with anyone who implies or (in some cases) openly states that I’m beginning the conversation with less than equal moral standing simply because I’m white. It seems like the hate and vitriol just seeps from people like Pete because there is something that they hate about themselves, and I’m quite certain that the root cause isn’t their whiteness.
I guess this is my long-winded way of saying that while civil discourse is healthy and can be productive, my best practice is to discontinue the conversation the minute I hear anything within the realm me being of “unknowingly racist” or enjoying “white privilege” entering the conversation, because the moment the person I’m speaking with starts spewing that bullshit, I know they’re not only unreachable, but they’re also “unknowingly ignorant”.