The 7 Types of Racism (Philosophy of Race)

[@torshavnnewell]

This community deserves more likes and views

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks!

[@chrismathew2295]

This is an informative exposition that's fair to both sides. You effectively draw upon the literature to summarise the various distinctions that attend this contentious subject matter. Commendable!

[@leokingh6472]

Brilliant Video. Like you said I the beginning of the video, a lot of these types of racism are ignored for the purpose fitting a political narrative, both by people on the left and the right. So it's great to see them all broken down in this video with no biases.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks! It always seemed to me that the real conversation people are having is around whether a particular act is moral or not, but they couch it in semantic language of whether or not something is racist. I hope this can provide a full breakdown of all the positions, and the arguments around them.

[@hamzaahmed-eq5nx]

Thanks a lot… And also amazed to hear my country Ethiopia mentioned as an example for type1 racism.

[@ericfranks3736]

Thanks for this concise breakdown of racism. Ive been having a hard time articulating my feelings on the matter and this has helped alot.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Great! I am glad to help. The goal of the video was to outline the structure of a debate that often sees people talking past each other more than advance a positive view, so I am glad it helped!

[@bobpope3656]

I wonder if anyone has ever been made less racist by explaining the finer details of thier bigotry to them.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Likely few and far between for individuals, though the story of Daryl Davis might qualify. Systems, particularly those that are unintentionally racist (e.g. ai hiring that unintentionally favors "whiter sounding" names because those are the people the company has hired before) might change.

[@australianpatriot]

perhaps its made people more racist

[@pendejo6466]

if anyone accused me of racism, I'd most likely lean into it.

[@tophatcat1173]

@@pendejo6466 that's stupid

[@Tealdragon204]

Absolute balls of steel to broach this topic without causing anger. I would never take such a risk

[@nickolashessler314]

I've heard some people claim that music theory as we know it can be reduced to "the harmonic style of 18th century European musicians" and privileges those styles of music over the musical styles of other cultures. Regardless of the merit of this claim, which kind of racism, if any would such a person be alleging exists in this case? I'm thinking it would be academic racism, but I want to make sure.

[@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ]

Well if we take this road we can say there is nothing objective. Music, aesthetics, ethics ,morals ,science, mathematics, culture, and truth. So if it's all subjective how can you call someone or some act racist? On what do you base this claim?

[@rushillakdawala4402]

All I know is that Justin Beiber is a trash chap, while Tchaikovsky is the best.

[@nickolashessler314]

@@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ 1. Re-read the original comment. I wasn't adopting their stance in the comment. 2. If you want to see what people say on behalf of this claim, Adam Neely has a good video you can watch on the subject: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gaOWoqh9nZyjgKM 3. How does the failure of music theory *as we know it* to fully capture the merits of all kinds of music across the world and across time entail the subjectivity of science, mathematics, and truth as a whole?

[@nickolashessler314]

@@rushillakdawala4402 true. The romantic era was pretty great for music

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Someone that claims we are immoral to think Western music is more beautiful is because we have been conditioned to prefer that style over other styles might be accusing us of a type of academic racism. How persuasive their argument is likely hinges on how objective you think the assessment of music is. If you think there are some harmonics that are objectively unpleasant, and others that are objectively more pleasant, and that Western music captures these, you might think they are wrong. But if you think that the quality of music is in the eye of the beholder, or that Western music is not objectively the best, you are not really the target of their claim.

[@Pfhorrest]

Fascinating video, I loved the system of categorization for the first six types. Personally I think all of those six types are morally problematic in different ways and degrees: - individual and systemic types are deontically problematic (unjust means) - historical types are consequentially problematic (bad ends) - individual types are more deontically unjust, but less consequentially bad than systemic types - types targeting those in power are less consequentially bad, but no less deontically unjust - deontic injustice is more morally problematic than consequential badness And the shadow third dimension of intentionality is least important of all, but of course on that axis intentional is worse than unintentional. So if we were to label them things like "1i" and "1u" to incorporate intentionality, I would rank them, in descending order of moral problematicity: - 1i (intentional individual punching down) - 4i (intentional individual punching up) - 1u (unintentional individual punching down) - 2i (intentional systemic punching down) - 5i (intentional systemic punching up) - 4u (unintentional individual punching up) - 2u (unintentional systemic punching down) - 5u (unintentional systemic punching up) - 3i (intentional historic punching down) - 6i (intentional historic punching up) - 3u (unintentional historic punching down) - 6u (unintentional historic punching up) But they should all be avoided. Type 7 is just pomobabble and not worth consideration: both the "left" and "right" arguments against it seem sound to me.

[@JacquesduPlessis11]

As a South African who saw firsthand the damage of apartheid, I think you morally undervalue intentional systemic punching (and maybe also intentional systemic actions in general?). I think it is much more nefarious than individual actions in general.

[@Pfhorrest]

@@JacquesduPlessis11 I do acknowledge that they are more consequentially bad, but the individual types are more deontically unjust, and I prioritize deontic justice over consequential goodness. Basically, someone singling out a person to directly harm them is a more clear-cut injustice than making it more likely that people in a certain group experience will experience harm than people in another group will, even though the latter ends up with more overall harm happening in the end. E.g. a single murder is more unjust than a policy that statistically reduces healthcare outcomes and therefore leads to higher average mortality: even though more bad happens in the latter case, nobody straight up killed anybody like in the former.

[@blessingsjoelssen2499]

As a South African born in 1991, I know exactly what the narrator speaks of...

[@cristiancojocaru9821]

I tried giving this a fair shot, but unfortunately the base framing of this is too biased for me to keep interest. In short, if an action is immoral then that status is not changed by the individual characteristics of the target, this applies to everything, not just racism.

[@InventiveHarvest]

Note: this comment is made before the video is released. Hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised. 1. Treating people differently 2. Treating people the same 3. Judging someone by the color of their skin 4. Being "colorblind" 5. Appropriating another culture 6. Being too white 7. Political beliefs I dont like At some point, the term racism will mean whatever you want it to mean.

[@KEvronista]

being a regular viewer of Carneades, i suspect this comment will not age well, at all. KEvron

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@KEvronista perhaps you have a better prediction on what the 7 definitions will be?

[@KEvronista]

@@InventiveHarvest i suspect they'll be types of racism, rather than examples of it. for example, racial animus is not the same type of racism as racial chauvinism. KEvron

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@KEvronista it sounds like you are saying that viewing other races as inferior is not the same as seeing your own race as superior.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

An interesting list. One thing I try to do in the video is separate the normative claim "racism is bad" from the semantic claim "racism means x". In this way we can talk about things that have been called racism, without saying those things are necessarily bad. It means we can give a much cleaner definition of racism since it can include things that some people find morally acceptable, and highlight that the disagreement is really around an ethical question of which types of racism are morally permissible, not a semantic question of whether x is racism. At least one type of "racism" is something that I would expect many folks across the political spectrum to find morally acceptable, but who knows. I did a similar move in my series on "cultural appropriation" (a concept which even Kwame Antony Appiah, one of the top living philosophers, particularly on questions of race, has called "neoliberalism at its worst"). Check out that series if you want a preview of how I treat these kinds of issues before the video goes public, and hopefully you'll be pleasantly surprised (kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYO2eGibqKmbhKc). Or, if not, bring your arguments on Sunday, always happy to debate. :)

[@waltershumer4211]

What is the difference in between the Jacques Derrida fellow and a nihilist? Isn't he just saying that nothing means anything? Couldn't we apply his own deconstructionist technique to his philosophy itself?

[@rushillakdawala4402]

Ha! Herein comes the Derridean sleight of hand. The classic Derridean will say that the deconstructionist technique is not a "philosophy" or even a "technique"; hell, they may get down to deconstructing the difference between "philosophy" and "technique" and "analysis". As such, you can't apply deconstruction TO deconstruction, because deconstruction is something undefined, and nothing can be applied to deconstruction. P.S. This whole CONSTRUCTION of DECONSTRUCTION is a highly suspect thing. If you criticize it, it is claimed that you haven't understood it; if you apply it to the real world, you may as well deconstruct the difference between the two categories - racism and ethical behaviour. So, I think deconstruction leads to monism - "There is no real classification, everything is a part of an organic, undeconstructionable whole." Edit: So, I think deconstruction leads to monism and not nihilism.

[@blankname5177]

Such a great and concise video. Thank you.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks for watching! Glad you think a 45min video is concise, it is a tough topic and I tried to both do it justice and not bore everyone to tears. :)

[@bradspitt3896]

Ah, so you believe you can be racist without intent? Edit: wait, you may just be providing definitions and not taking a particular stance.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Your edit is correct, as a skeptic I am not taking a particular stance. I don't know if racism exists, if it is always wrong, or if any of these definitions are correct. One thing that I do try to do in this video is separate the moral claim "racism is wrong" from the semantic one "racism is X" as the real disagreement here seems to be a moral one about what we should do, not a semantic one of the technical definition of racism. This means that we can offer various definitions of racism without reference to intent, because intent has more to do with the morality of the action than the content of it. The real disagreement is not, what racism is, but rather which types of racism are immoral. You might think only those with intent are, but that is a moral claim, not a semantic one.

[@in.der.welt.sein.]

​@@CarneadesOfCyreneokay, so you rightfully start off skeptical, but why remain there dogmatically as if it is some kind of impossibility to figure out what the essence of racism consists in? It's odd that you a priori start off separating racism and morality. Racism itself entails a highly moral view of the world, since it is about parsing peoples into moral categories, about who deserves what based on their supposed nature.

[@sukumard4537]

Wow.. this is not eye opening because i have been racking my brain to come to this point which is very hard. I am relieved because now i have understanding to whom I should discuss. Without knowing these terminology and classifications, it is difficult to proceed further and to reach consensus for the betterment of all. Though my work was to approach in a ethical way, no matter with how much sanity i approach, the person in front of me wants to talk for what he holds on to as right and everytime that person is rooted to what he belongs to or to his Identity. The third dimension of bringing intent is matters the most, though it is not concentrated much here. Because it brings consciousness into the picture. I have taken notes out of interest. This video gives awareness and it makes me more responsible. Thank you so much.

[@MalTheMostTired]

my question is how does one fix is how does one get these different types of understanding to stop talk past each other? If you have done any reading on this or just have analytical notes on this video I'd love to see them.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Good question. It does so by shifting the conversation from a semantic one where everyone is just yelling about what the "right" definition of racism is to an ethical one where the question is which of these types of racism are immoral. We have many philosophical frameworks for judging if a particular act is immoral, but few for judging if a definition is the "right" one. The real conversation is an ethical one, it is just getting masked behind a semantic conversation.

[@Mrwells11]

GOOD VIDEO DUDE.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks! Glad you appreciated it!

[@burnonedown2day]

This was long but super interesting!

[@socialswine3656]

I already know the comments here are gonna be dumb

[@socialswine3656]

Yep

[@jd2981]

You're right

[@MrLachlan1903]

Two more types and you can play bingo. I'll get to work on finding those new ways.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

There almost were 13, but I decided to not split by intentionality because that was just too many to keep track of and intention is so hard to measure.

[@roxanne2749]

Now, l have to check what kind of racism ppl use on me and which one (among these 7) l use on them.

[@jonanasbananas2944]

You are amazing

[@Amor_fati.Memento_Mori]

Why is everything so fucking complicated. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@waltershumer4211]

Racism is just another word for tribalism, which is not a shallow social construct but a innate aspect of humanity as human beings are pack animals and pack animals are tribal. Trying to fight it is like a man screaming at a typhoon or tsunami ,accept nature as it is instead of how we wish it to be, and find peace. Respect one another the keep your countries as homogeneous as possible. The Eternal truth is that the more differences there are in between people the more they fight and the more similar they are the more harmonious Society is. Look at the most Multicultural Societies in the world and compare them with the most homogeneas societies and you will see that one is vastly more harmonious than the other. Compare Japan to Brazil..... Singapore to America...... Switzerland to Paris....... the Balkans to Thailand. Diversity is not a virtue the very word itself means to divide. Unfortunately that is what some people want more than anything else. It's the oldest trick in the book to divide and conquer

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

A very communitarian nationalist point of view (kzbin.info/www/bejne/hH6npKKsibl6psk). One major challenge with that view is that cultures are already quite heterogeneously mixed, and unmixing them often leads to genocide or other war crimes (see Bosnian genocide, Armenian genocide etc.). Not saying that is what you are advocating, just saying that such policies are often required and generally considered moral atrocities. Additionally, while feelings of tribal and racial animosity may be common human emotions, it does not follow that humans cannot fight against them. In fact it seems that the many societies which do live with multiple cultures side by side are a testament to the ability of rational individuals to overcome natural instincts.

[@KEvronista]

*"the more differences there are in between people the more they fight and the more similar they are the more harmonious Society is"* black populations don't fight amongst and between each other any more or less than white populations, yet the genetic diversity within a black population is enormous, to the extent that a member of a white population is statistically more likely to be more genetically similar to both of two members of a black population than those two are to each other. the science doesn't support your special "truth." KEvron

[@waltershumer4211]

@@KEvronista ...... would you be so kind as to please name a Multicultural Society in existence that is more harmonious than a homogeneous one. Also may I ask do you consider diversity to be a strength? And if so why? Thank you

[@KEvronista]

@@waltershumer4211 *"would you be so kind as to"* and encourage your further conflation of correlation with causation? i'm disinclined to play that game. that said, multicultural societies have existed and thrived throughout man's history. cities don't get named tripoli for nothing. *"do you consider diversity to be a strength?"* yes. it increases a population's potential for survival. KEvron

[@waltershumer4211]

@@KEvronista ..... I rest my case

[@dionysianapollomarx]

Cool. Can't wait. Can already see beginnings of bad faith interactions in the comments.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

We will see what we get. I am hopeful that my attempts to separate the ethical "is racism bad?" question from the semantic question "what is racism?" May help quell some of the poorly formed arguments, and help folks to indentify the specific types of racism that they find moral or immoral, but who knows?

[@Funny1budgie]

Yeah! We gonna learn 7 types of evilness. Thanks btw. One needs to learn both good and evil.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

I will be curious to see if after the video if you still think all of the things I classify as racism are evil, because I would expect most are skeptical.

[@metalfish3384]

I'd refrain from equating racism with evil, despite beliving the world would be better off without it. We as social animals have multiple personalities, or social masks if you will, that are dependent on the social context we find ourselves in. A good person (I am using the word 'good' colloquially here, so for instance, someone who donates to a charity or volunteers at an animal shelter or a cop devoted to serve and protect etc. can be considered 'good') can also be a racist person. Racism can stem from a number of factors, it may be culturally embedded or politically triggered, the racist person themselves may have some negative personal experiences or lack the means to find unbiased information, and many other factors can be proposed. The word 'evil' carries a lot of weight, and when used in a serious manner, it is one of the most stigmatizing and thus one of the most efficient conversation-stopper words one could ever use. To summarize, I am not saying racism is good, but I am merely pointing out that equating (or giving an impression of doing as such) evil and racism is both detrimental to fruitful communication and can hamper our ability to engage crticially with this phenomenon.

[@werrkowalski2985]

Also it depends on the precise definition of racism. Let's say that there are some intrinsic differences between races, for example, I think few would object to the fact that Asians are significantly more predisposed to lactose intolerance because of genetic differences. A scientific fact that even to a progressive leftist would likely not seem to be racist. Now let's say that you are a businessman and you want to open a shop selling milk products in China, but you are aware of the fact that Asians tend to be lactose intolerant, so you decide against it, instead you open your shop in Germany. What has happened is that you just discriminated based on race, and according to the definitions of racism accepted in this video you are a racist. But is this reasonable? After all we discriminate in some ways all the time, based on authority, wealth, family relations etc, yet we don't find it immoral or unreasonable.

[@pendejo6466]

@@werrkowalski2985 Scientific facts are racist, because my feelings.

[@steveescalante]

Lol

[@MacSmithVideo]

Guaranteed to rage at some of these "definitions" of racism, so I won't watch, but I suppose a list could useful nonetheless ;)