When to use the word ‘racist’
Context
As I write this the civilised world is justifiably outraged over the death of George Floyd. Many activists have opportunistically used the momentum of this outrage to push for more rapid change in the battle against racial inequality. This is a wonderful and sensible thing to do.
The Black Lives Matter movement is at the forefront of this push for change. As with every movement there are accompanying ideologies and as with every ideology there are extreme manifestations of it.
Any ideology taken to its extreme becomes irrational, indiscriminate, and oppressive. The Paperclip Maximiser is an AI-themed thought experiment that demonstrates how a simple idea taken to an extreme can become destructive.
Over the last few years I’ve become aware of an extreme ideology that I will describe here as the radical left. While well-intentioned this ideology is in my opinion incredibly harmful, much more virulent than SARS-CoV-2, and may have more enduring consequences. The most tangible manifestation of this ideology’s flaws are its misuse of the word racist.
I dislike political labels as they are imprecise and reductionist so I use the term radical left tentatively here but I think most readers will understand what is meant by it. It may be that you identify as being on the radical left but do not misuse the word racist or subscribe to harmful ideologies. In that case the use of the term radical left is nothing more than a labelling error with respect to you and can be ignored. No matter who you are I urge you to read on and see if you feel the points here actually apply to you or others you know.
To avoid ambiguity let me give some examples of what I consider radical left ideas.
- White silence is violence.
- Outrage over the collateral damage of protests indicates a lack of concern for the primary issue of racism and is itself a racist act.
- Rioting is completely justified as it is the only way to produce rapid enough change.
Previously I had assumed that the radical left was just that: radical. Meaning that individuals subscribing to this ideology should be few in number, residing in the shallow basins of a bell curve. However on social media I have found that radical left ideas permeate my network. They have become mainstream! People I have always found to be moderate, pleasant individuals are espousing ideas that implicate most people as racist, using the word with such an amorphous definition that it can be applied to almost any individual. I find this both alarming and baffling. Perhaps it just goes to show the persuasive power of ideologies whose banner reads “the good guys”. Who wouldn’t want to rally under such a banner?
The point is that this has been genuinely unexpected to me and is the motivation for writing this piece.
Occasionally radical ideas are actually beneficial for the majority and they represent the rising tide of a revolution. Most of the time however they are just counter-productive and harmful, even to the causes they purport to serve. I hope that breaking down the radical left’s use of the word racist will demonstrate why this particular ideology is sadly just another counter-productive and harmful one.
First we’ll look at why the misuse of the word racist and words in general is so damaging. Then we’ll be able to look at some examples of the word racist being misapplied with a full appreciation of its effects. Finally we’ll look at some alternative words that can be used and some cognitive tools that will allow us to treat each other more reasonably.
Why is it bad to misuse powerful words?
Meaning is everything
If you use a word inappropriately for too long it loses its meaning. Words have meaning and that gives them power. If you don’t believe me just try saying the word ‘flannel’ over and over again, you will soon find it has lost all meaning. What’s more, if there are no flannels around, people will wonder what’s wrong with you and sensibly assume that other things you say in future will also be meaningless.
If one group of people misuses a word for long enough then it degrades the meaning of that word for everyone. It causes cognitive dissonance in the minds of others who have a different understanding of the word and this makes them naturally confused and grouchy. Their reaction is to grouchily challenge the new use of this word that they do not understand. This upsets the group misusing the word because they want it to mean something else. This starts an unproductive cycle of unending silliness. Usually the opposing groups will manage to boil down their disagreements to a few sticking points that they cannot move past because of a refusal of either party to engage with the underlying logic at play. Most groups of people will not have the mental and emotional tools to come out of the other side with anything other than utter contempt for one another. This is upsetting for everyone involved.
Dictionaries help to avoid unnecessary conflict
If only distinct groups could agree a common set of words and meanings then they could move past semantics and onto solving real issues… Fortunately we already have a really helpful tool for avoiding this issue, it’s called a dictionary! Dictionaries provide mappings of sounds to meanings that can be used by society to communicate productively and without ambiguity. This provides something unfathomably beneficial: a shared understanding. One of the most productive things people can do with a shared understanding is collaborate to eliminate racism!
With that in mind let’s use our dictionary to review the most widely understood definition of racism.
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.
As you can see the word racist is a very important and useful word. It describes what we should not be and by contrast what we should be. We really don’t want the word racist to lose its meaning. Unfortunately it is being recklessly misused, a bit like the word literally, but with far more serious consequences.
‘Racist’ is a moral slur
If you meet a stranger and see that they are behaving in a civilised manner then you can infer certain basic things about them thanks to the culture you share with them. Most of the time the stranger will be a compatriot and so you will share a national culture with them. One of the things it is sensible to infer about them is that they share at least some basic values of right and wrong with you. One of the most basic values of right and wrong is that discrimination based on inherited traits is wrong. Discrimination based on skin colour is even easier to grasp as it is such a comically abstract criterion for discrimination. Even children can see the absurdity in racial discrimination.
Civilised nations are miracles of primate collaboration that are only able to exist because we’ve gotten so good at building shared identities underpinned by strong moral codes. It is therefore easy to understand the weight that moral slurs carry. A moral slur challenges your very identity. It is one of the most grave insults you can give and should therefore be administered with caution. Racist is a moral slur every civilised person understands and fears. It is powerful, and with great power comes great responsibility.
The word racist is therefore one of the most offensive single words you have to sling at someone. What then are the implications of calling someone racist when there is even a small chance they are not? According to our judicial system, not good…
Innocent until proven guilty
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal principle that reveals an important truth: That it is more morally reprehensible to punish an innocent person than it is for a guilty person to go unpunished. This is why it is deeply immoral to state or even imply that someone is racist when they might not be, just as it would be immoral to charge someone with a crime without enough evidence to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
You may think this sounds dramatic or extreme. If so I would argue that you are not appreciating the power of words. That power is to be respected and it is being reckless and irresponsible with the wellbeing of others to use them carelessly. Just look at the power racial slurs carry. We know not to use racial slurs because of the destructive power they carry. Moral slurs should be treated similarly.
Guilt and shame are toxic emotions
Another reason we should be careful with the word racist is that it can cause unnecessary guilt and shame if misapplied. It is perfectly possible to manufacture artificial feelings of guilt and shame in a person’s mind.
Patients receiving therapy have sometimes ‘remembered’ traumatic things that never happened due to the aggressive and misguided suggestions of their therapists. Derren Brown demonstrated in his experiment The Guilt Trip how terrifyingly easy it is to reproduce the phenomenon of a false murder confession.
Some people are so gentle-natured that when a radical idea implies that they are racist they will actually deeply internalise this even if they have never committed a racist act in their lives! Feelings of guilt and shame can cause real psychological damage to these people whether they are based in reality or not.
How is the word ‘racist’ being misused?
Recalibrating the racist radar
What I’ve highlighted so far is the seriousness of the collateral damage that can occur when the word racist is applied recklessly. However is it likely that none of this is persuasive to one subscribing to radical left ideology because it instills so much confidence and conviction that others are indeed racists.
One of the most flawed ideas that enables these blanket accusations of racism is that expressing outrage over issues other than racism is an indication that the individual in question cares more about these other issues than the primary issue of racism. This is interpreted as itself an act of racism, therefore branding huge swathes of the general public as racists.
For example if someone posts on social media expressing outrage at the harm caused to police horses during the protests that could be interpreted as racist because it is detracting from the much more important issue of racism.
Likewise outrage at conducting protests during a pandemic could merely be seen as a way to push a racist agenda by discrediting protestors.
The problem with this thinking is that it is based on the premise that what someone says (or posts on social media) is an accurate proxy for their inner thoughts and feelings. This is false.
You are what you do, not what you say
A person’s posts on social media are not evidence of their inner thoughts and feelings. If they post about horses but not George Floyd that doesn’t mean they care more about horses than George Floyd. It means they had something noteworthy to say about one but not the other.
George Floyd’s death is so obviously a heinous crime that for many people it’s actually difficult to think of anything novel to say about it. If you do say something about it that’s great, but there is nothing racist about not doing so.
How many posts do you see simply stating “Not a big fan of the holocaust”? Not many, because there’s little motivation to say such things. Everyone is already secure in the knowledge that everyone else agrees with that statement. They have successfully built a shared understanding and need not waste further time repeating what is already understood.
On the other hand it’s a much more nuanced comment to say “I support the protests but not cruelty to horses”. People can then discuss this and separate the good behaviour from the bad. In this way we should all be able to improve our shared understanding. It doesn’t mean its more important.
People don’t just post about what the current most important things is at all times. Here’s a personal example: I recently welcomed my son in to the world and it was one of the best things that has ever happened to me. I didn’t feel the need to broadcast this on Facebook but not long after I did respond to birthday messages people had sent me. Does this mean I care more about my own birthday than the birth of my son? Of course not.
Assume the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
Some of these topics are incredibly complicated and multi-layered. For example what if the protests actually do lead to another spike in COVID-19 cases and thousands more people die?
The entire outbreak in South Korea was traced back to one group of about 100 individuals so this is possible. In this case trying to determine the most moral option from protesting vs online campaigning vs delaying the protests vs every other option is incredibly difficult.
Perhaps the person studies the spread of viruses for a living and they understand how easily this can happen. If so they should certainly not be considered racist for expressing they think it’s not the right time to protest. They’re just be making an informed call on the most moral course of action in a scenario with many confounding factors.
All butterflies fly, but not everything that flies is a butterfly
All rioters protest, but not all protesters riot. Criticism of a very small minority of individuals is not criticism of protesters or the protest in general. Conflating different groups of people is a common source of misunderstanding.
Nihilism
Unfortunately those on the radical left have their ‘racist radar’ incorrectly calibrated to an unrealistically sensitive setting. This explains some of the anger and sometimes even violence displayed by these individuals. Most people have a breaking point at which optimism turns to nihilism. When things are so bad that you think “fuck the system, burn it down”. I can understand why these individuals are so angry. If I thought there were 1000 times more racists in the world than there actually were I’m ashamed to say that I would probably start feeling a bit looty myself.
The problem is that a person’s ‘racist radar' can be calibrated according to a complete fantasy but when they go out and smash up a shop that’s about as real as it gets.
How can we avoid misusing powerful words?
Most respectful interpretation
If there is one thing I want you to take away from this it is the principle of Most Respectful Interpretation. It means we should always interpret the intentions of others in the most respectful way possible.
We can’t see inside a person’s head. It is a black box and must be treated as such because there is too much ambiguity in speech. Freedom of speech is essential for this reason. We can only punish acts. Unless we see a person actually doing something racist we do not know if they are a racist, period. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Hitchen’s Razor
The claim that someone is a racist is an extraordinary claim. Hitchen’s Razor teaches us that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Someone posting that they feel bad for horses is not even 1% of the necessary evidence to brand someone a racist.
Occam’s Razor
Occam’s Razor teaches us that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. There are literally millions of more reasonable explanations for why a person has posted about horses but not racism. Remember, only racist actions constitute racism.
Know your bias
Most Respectful Interpretation, Hitchen’s Razor, and Occam’s Razor are all principles that help us to overcome our biases but they only cover a few. There are many biases which we are all vulnerable to. You can learn about them at the Your Bias Is website.
It is inevitable that at some point we will mistreat someone because of our biases and the worst thing is we may not even realise we’ve done it. Learning about our own biases is the only way to minimise this.
Use precise language
Next time you feel angry and you’re about to say something to someone else ask yourself if your language is accurate for describing the reality of the situation. Anger usually leads to hyperbole. Perhaps instead of racist you could use more moderate language like close-minded, uninformed, or simply just of a different opinion.
If they’re exhibiting a bias you can politely link them to the relevant one on the Your Bias Is website. If they’re uninformed you can politely link them to some things to read whilst remembering that you too were once uninformed.
Aim your passion in the right direction
It’s amazing that there is so much passion to eliminate racism in the world. It is one of many things that makes me optimistic about the future of humanity. That makes it all the more tragic when passion is poorly aimed and instead causes harm.
If you’re arguing with regular citizen’s on the internet ask yourself are you actually serving black lives right now? Is there someone else in a position of greater power you could be engaging with? If you truly care about black lives then you should try to create real positive change for the individuals who are actually being discriminated against. The Effective Altruism movement scientifically researches the most effective ways to produce change and arguing with people on the internet is not one of them.
In all likelihood 2 hours researching a credible charity and donating to it will have exponentially more real-world impact than 2 years arguing with people on the internet. Think what you could do with all that extra time!
Closing thoughts
Two wrongs don’t make a right
Damaged shop-fronts are the most minor type of collateral damage in my opinion. The much more concerning type of damage is to our language and our social fabric. We are absolutely capable of eliminating racism without this unnecessary cost. In fact we will actually be better at eliminating racism if we do it together. This can only be achieved if we dismiss the radical ideas that by definition divide us.
Be nice to one another
Let us not sully the good intentions and energy of individuals around the world by allowing this collateral damage to accumulate further. Let us embrace more moderate and rational ideologies. Let us always practice most respectful interpretation when considering our fellow human beings.
This does not require a leap of faith, it is not mindless optimism. It can be anecdotally verified by walking around the world and noting that the majority of people you meet are nice, anti-racists folks. It can be historically verified by noting the continuous upward trajectory of humanity for all of recorded history. Cynicism is illogical.
In summary we have every reason to be nice to one another.
