This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I really don’t think people in this space grapple with this question, and questions like it, nearly enough.
Many of my complaints about how this “IDW-ish slice” of the Internet discusses racism would be addressed if, after reading someone’s comments about how leftists have used the word “racism” into meaninglessness, I got the impression that they had proactively, introspectively, honestly asked themselves the following questions:
I agree that a lot of left-wing people abuse the term “racism”! But that’s, like, step negative one of an actually introspective conversation. I don’t see many people here actually grapple with “what do I think racism is?”, instead only arguing the negative.
For example, imagine if I did this with something that was more of a sacred cow of these parts — imagine if I argued “right-wing people have abused the term free speech into complete meaninglessness because almost all of them invoke the first amendment in response to private actors criticizing them or banning them from a forum etc”. You can’t really deny that a large number of people actually do this all the time, but this is a terrible comment, right? What I need to do is actually engage with the idea — “what do these people mean when they say free speech? What restrictions do I think should be put on private platforms to honor free speech? What social norms should surround censorship of unpopular statements by private actors?” and so on.
So responding to a right-wing person complaining about free speech with “right-wing people have used this term so loosely I genuinely have no idea what they mean anymore” would be unbelievably lazy. It’s fundamentally my job to understand what they mean, and all my comment shows is that I’ve blatantly refused to do that, and chosen to believe that they mean nothing.
And in terms of my actual statements, this makes me completely indistinguishable from someone who actually doesn’t believe in free speech at all, and would have no objections to the government passing a law to ban spoken racism, doesn’t it?
In the same way, imagine the perspective of someone like me, a person with the opposite view to the prevailing zeitgeist around these parts when it comes to racism. Try to remember that if all you do is make this negative argument (“leftists have abused the term racism so much it’s meaningless now”), I have absolutely no idea if you are someone whose beliefs are closer to “the thing that most young Americans in 1995 would have called racism is in fact bad, but it barely exists and leftists exaggerate it” or whose beliefs are closer to “the thing that most young Americans would have called racism in 1995 is in fact good and more people should do it”, and those are completely different arguments to have. And the process of trying to get to the point where I know which of these you’re actually saying is exhausting and 90% of the time I fail. Many of you I uncharitably suspect of switching between the two whenever it’s convenient for you to do so.
TL;DR: What I really want is for you to be proactive in telling me which you mean, rather than just talking about what you don’t consider to be racism. If this is not racism, what would I consider racism? Did the majority of people who supported segregation do so for racist reasons, or not? And so on.
You look at what they say and do, and build an argument that regardless of whether they're willing to admit it, they're biased.
Applying negative or positive modifiers to your interactions or judgements of people based not on their individual actions, but on their stated or perceived racial identity.
The statements you listed seem like obvious examples of racism, so your definition seems like a poor one. Why personal animus? Why not impersonal animus? Why rely on animus at all; how you treat people is relative, and if you treat some people better because of their race, that's racism, just as if you treated other people worse because of their race.
Do you honestly think most of the regulars here would disagree with the above in principle? Of the ones who would disagree, do you honestly think they'd claim not to be racist? There's varying degrees of actual WNs here, and seeing them explicitly argue that racism is good, actually is hardly an unknown occurrence.
I don't see why that is supposed to be a bad argument. I can see I disagree with it, since "free speech" was commonly understood to be about much more than the strict text of the First Amendment, but the First Amendment does not, in fact, constrain censorship by private actors in general, right wingers do, in fact, sometimes get sloppy with their arguments and imply it does, and this does, in fact, muddy the waters of the conversation. It is not unreasonable to conclude that a term has been so misused as to no longer be useful, in which case the proper thing to do is to taboo the term and agree on another that better communicates ones' ideas.
And in fact, arguments more or less identical to the one you've presented as clearly bad have been a common part of the debate here since the community's formation. I've engaged in a large number of productive discussions that started with a comment very similar to "the right-wing conception of free speech is incoherent", and those discussions have shaped my thinking on the nature of rights and government.
Questions like these are the obvious next-step in the discussion, but registering disagreement is still the first step. Ideally, one does more than one step per comment, but life is often less than ideal, and it seems to me that a clear statement of disagreement is often a good first step.
Sure. Then one can attempt to discuss free speech with you, ideally more than once and from a variety of different angles, and build a model over time of the nature of your worldview and values. One can ask questions and contemplate the answers, note which arguments you make and which positions you commit to over time, and note whether these appear to be motivated by principle or convenience. One can note how you engage with those who disagree, whether you argue in good faith, and so on. In this way we come to know each other over time, and when we find a sharp mind, much can be learned even if agreement is never achieved.
I offered some definitions above; would those satisfy your request? If, as I believe, the large majority of regulars here share approximately that same definition, as evidenced by their previous comments, why would stating it each time be necessary? If you were a newcomer and were unfamiliar, why not just start asking questions?
...But then, of course, we get to the flipside.
It's always nice to see common ground. But the question is, what follows? Where does this apparent agreement lead? If the term has been abused, what consequences result, and how should we think about them? If the common way of talking about race is in fact fraught, how do we talk about it instead?
Here's a recent conversation I engaged in with someone who seemed to be, at least by my definition above, a racist. Your argument is that people here have something of a blind-spot toward actual racism, that we've just handwaved the question away rather than taking it seriously. Do you think that critique applies to my arguments in that exchange? If so, how? I'm up for continuing the conversation if you are.
You say:
I would not endorse either of those statements, though I'm much closer to the former than the later. I do not think young people in 1995 had a good understanding of the problem of racism, because they failed to anticipate the results of their actions and the consensus they rallied behind. I do think most of the things they considered racist were in fact racist, but some of them were not, and some of those were intentional lies sold to them. It seems to me that the opposition to racism typical of the 90s simply failed on its own terms, and any serious conversation on the subject needs to engage with that fact front and center. If you'd like a more in-depth elaboration of this idea, you can find one starting here, with the meat being the arguments from exhaustion, blindness, dementia, sociopathy, and senescence laid out here. If you have thoughts or disagreements with the arguments outlined there, I'm again up for it if you are. More generally, I'd be interested to know if you think that discussion grapples sufficiently with the question of racism and race relations, and if not, what you think it missed.
In any case, I think I am a pretty good example of someone who rejects Progressive discourse on and definitions of racism, while still considering actual racism to be a problem that needs to be addressed, in one's own reasoning most of all. I hardly think I'm alone in this position, and I think there would be even more joining me if there remained any real hope for positive-sum solutions in the near-term.
More generally, I think you severely underestimate the credibility problem inherent to this subject from the perspective of many of the people commonly posting here. There's a reply to you from @Nybbler, below, that basically amounts to "the term 'racism' is actively counterproductive". If you disagree, why not outline your view of how the term and the discourse employing it has delivered net-positive outcomes for our society or subsets thereof? If you are disinclined to engage with Nybbler, I'd be happy to take up his side of the argument; I certainly do not believe that either the term or the general discourse have been positive-sum across our society in recent years. For an example, see the discussion some years back of Progressive attempts to address racial gaps in discipline in the public school system. Stuff like that is where a lot of the pitch-black cynicism over the discourse surrounding "racism" comes from, and that was before BLM and the riots and the murder wave, and hard data about the intentional social interventions that brought those things about.
Does any of the above shift your priors that the question of racism isn't seeing thoughtful engagement here? If not, I'm interested in your further critique, either of the above or of other specifics you find relevant.
That … was my point, yes? The point was that “clearly and consistently stated personal animus” is trivially a bad definition for “racism” in that it fits basically none of the actual examples that nearly everyone agrees to be racist, and yet many here consider the idea that racism can include unconscious bias to be some recent redefinition of the term that makes it meaningless.
Again, that’s precisely my point! The discussions start there, not finish! Almost everyone here who wants to argue “leftists have abused the term ‘racism’ into meaninglessness” are specifically saying that because they do not want to have a conversation about what racism is; they are trying to end the discussion there. The equivalent for free speech would be, if a right-wing person started talking about any more nuanced idea of what free-speech is than some ridiculous strawman, and I responded with “this entire discussion is a trap and I refuse to engage”. The moment a right-wing person says “free speech”, I get to assert that they can only mean the dumbest and most incoherent version of that concept, and when they try to explain that they don’t, I plug my ears and say that what’s coming is a deliberate trap.
As I’ve said, there’s something very honest about the open white nationalists, as much as I disagree with everything they stand for. Frankly I don't consider them reachable; I'll be cordial enough but I don't think there's realistically any chance I could change their minds or they mine; the worlds we see and our values are just too far apart. What frustrates me more are the Classical Liberals who will tell me that racism has been abused into meaninglessness by the Left and so what does it even mean anymore, who can possibly know, I guess we’ll just have to ditch this entire memeplex completely because it’s corrupted, when they’re surrounded by white nationalists.
(Seriously, guys, your “like, what even is racism anyway, man? Is it even, like, a thing?” comment does not feel very genuine to me when you have to have scrolled past the white nationalists responding to me to make it in the first place. Imagine being a libertarian in a left-wing space where your responses were three-fourths "Conservatives and neolibs will call absolutely anything Communism these days, they've turned that word into complete meaninglessness, like are there even any actual communists left? Whenever a right-winger says something is Communist I just ignore them" and one-fourth "Stalin did nothing wrong and we must immediately enact a worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat and seize the means of production". I know it's cringe but the only word that I can think of to describe the effect of this is "gaslighting".)
What frustrates me more is suspecting that the Classical Liberal in question is not that classically liberal at all.
I do think that most of the regulars here, excluding the white nationalists, will resolutely refuse to engage the question of whether “racism-as-unconscious-bias” is a meaningful concept or not in that it points to an actually existing thing in the world that is useful to point out, yes, doing their absolute best to derail that conversation at every stage. I think that they will argue that because the Left has abused that term into meaninglessness, we can’t have any discussion at all about this, and so I guess if a leftist wants to call them racist, then it just do be like that sometimes. I think they will temporarily adopt definitions of racism that require conscious and explicit bias without noting that this trivially doesn’t work for almost all of the standard cases. I think that they will talk about how Ibram X Kendi is dumb, or liken anti-racism to a religion, or talk about superweapons and cancel culture and free speech and thoughtcrime, and generally do anything possible to avoid the question I’m trying to drive towards.
That’s just … been my experience, at least, as I remember it.
You asked for peoples' definitions of racism, and I offered: "Applying negative or positive modifiers to your interactions or judgements of people based not on their individual actions, but on their stated or perceived racial identity." Do you recognize a difference between that definition and "clearly and consistently stated personal animus"? I think my definition covers all of the examples you gave for racism the local norms miss. If so, would you agree that I at least am not exhibiting the tendency your critique is aimed at? If not, what is my definition missing?
In that first link I offered, would you say that the guy I was arguing against was displaying "clearly and consistently stated personal animus"? His claims seem pretty similar to several of the ones you claim are missed by the local understanding, and yet I recognize his arguments as clearly racist, and argued against them. Would this be more evidence against your thesis? If not, again, what am I missing?
At this point, I've offered a definition, per your request, and an example of that definition being applied. Does this seem useful to you?
I think you are mistaken in two ways. First, I think while there are some people who are not interested in the conversation, there are more who will take it if offered. I am certainly one of them. Second, I think you are misunderstanding how conversation works here. I straightforwardly believe that "leftists have abused the term "racism" into meaninglessness". That is my best understanding of reality, and so it is my starting position if you wish to discuss the term with me. I have what seems to me to be a fairly clear model of how and when the term was eroded, which I've already taken the liberty of offering up, and which I'm more than happy to elaborate further on if you'd like. And of course, if you disagree, I'd greatly enjoy hearing your best arguments and evidence of how the term is meaningful, together with examples of how it has been usefully employed in recent years, and which positive outcomes resulted, and how those positive outcomes outweigh the negative outcomes associated with those uses. Would you agree that I, at least, don't appear to be trying to end a conversation by that statement? And if conversation is what you're looking for, by all means, let's commence!
In fact, you and @guesswho have gotten a fair number of replies in this thread, and in addition to being willing to argue my own position, I'd be happy to defend those of others that I do not myself consider racist. You argue that the white supremacy contingent is at least honest, but it's the "classical liberals" equivocating that you really object to. Well, can you point to that sort of equivocation in this thread? Arguments that aren't obvious WN talking points, but are playing with ambiguities? You seem to have called out @The_Nybbler for exactly this based on his tar-baby comment. I'd be happy to argue the other side of that one, if you like, since I think "racism" is, in the current era at least, a tar-baby.
...None of this happens, though, if you demand that people agree with you from the start as a precondition to conversation. I argue a number of controversial positions here on a fairly regular basis, and I always go in assuming that most people here are going to not only strongly disagree, but start from the position that my argument is straightforwardly stupid. That's half the fun of it, and I can't think of a time when it prevented me from finding good discussion. But if you aren't willing to actually make an argument, I can't very well make you, can I? All I can do in that case would be to point out that you complain that people aren't looking for conversations, and then refused the conversation when it was offered in good faith. And in fact, that has been my experience of how these conversations generally go, much to my displeasure.
It seems to me the response there is to argue that it is not a trap, perhaps by giving some examples of how and why the question genuinely matters. Alternatively, ask them why they believe it is a trap, and ask them what evidence could change their mind. This can't stop a person from stonewalling you, but it also can't stop you from making it very obvious that they are stonewalling and acting in bad faith, which is frowned on quite strongly here.
I straightforwardly believe the above, and yet I continue to argue vociferously with WNs. Since I think the term racism is useless, I don't bother accusing them of doing a racism, I just straightforwardly argue that their positions are obviously wrong on the merits, based on easily-available evidence. This has the added benefit that when they say something that would usually be judged racism but is in fact accurate, like citing Black crime statistics, I don't have to pretend they've committed a mortal sin by saying true things. Nor am I required to recognize solidarity or fraternity with them; they aren't on my side, and if by some miracle they were to achieve significant power in the future, well, Second Amendment Solutions work on WNs too.
The arguments you describe have frequently been present on the previous incarnations of this space, and are ubiquitous most other places, so I don't have to imagine anything. It never stopped me from making my case. Don't let it stop you from making yours.
Is it "derailing the conversation" to offer evidence of how the term and the people employing it have caused repeated, large-scale disaster far out of proportion to any concrete benefit they've delivered, especially in recent years?
Put another way, if someone genuinely disagrees with you about the usefulness of the term "racism", how should they go about making their case to you?
Well, I can easily promise not to make any of those arguments. And while I am pretty sure I disagree strongly with the point you're driving toward, I do want you to make it as clearly and cleanly as possible. How am I doing so far?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This complaint only makes sense if you think of words as having intrinsic or "correct" meanings. If you instead treat words as just vehicles for conveying ideas, then you could just answer "who in the world could we call a racist, then?" with "nobody, using it to describe people is pointless because it doesn't mean anything". And I think that's a reasonable answer if you're not going around calling people racist. If the word "racist" doesn't have to mean anything, then you can just not use it if you think it wouldn't help people understand the idea you're trying to convey.
No it isn't. It's the speaker's job to convey their idea in an easy-to-understand fashion. If there was an argument on this site where people were conflating the philosophical concept of free speech with the first amendment, then when I make a post in next week's thread about the philosophical concept it's my responsibility to clearly indicate that I'm not talking about the first amendment. If there were posts saying that the concept of "free speech" is incoherent and meaningless, then it's contingent on me to specify what exactly I mean by free speech. If enough people are confused, then it's probably better for me to not use the phrase "free speech" at all, and replace it with something like "the right to not be punished for conveying my opinion about the election".
So to answer your object-level question, you could (and should) directly say that you think "BAP has an unconscious bias against black people, regardless of their individual intelligence or behavior". If you want to know how a poster compares with the average 1995 American, you could ask "Do you think the average American in 1995 would agree with that statement? Do you agree with that statement?". You don't have to specifically use the word "racist", especially when you know it won't help people understand your point.
More options
Context Copy link
Why would that be absurd? Why do you believe the term is useful at all? Why do you believe that “racism” indicates a real and important phenomenon worth caring about? What if the word was never anything other than a boo light, intentionally devised as a way to pathologize what is actually a totally normal and healthy outlook?
There is nobody on earth who, upon honest reflection, would agree that “Yes, I just hate minorities because they’re ugly and stinky and it’s bad to look different from the way I look.” That is a caricature which exists only in the heads of racial egalitarians and “anti-racists”. In reality, even the least introspective, most unreflective “bigot” has actual specific reasons - even if it’s at the level of anecdotal examples and life experience - to believe that there are important differences between the traits and the history of various groups, and/or that limiting the interpersonal interaction of those groups is optimal. I don’t care if they wouldn’t put it in those high-falutin’ terms. Even if you gave them truth serum and ample opportunity to freely articulate the contents of their own minds, they wouldn’t commit to “just don’t like ‘em, simple as” as an honest reflection of their internal mental state.
Racism isn’t real. Believing in important racial differences is certainly real; I believe it, as do probably a plurality of commenters here. Believing that an optimal society ought to achieve some level of separation/segregation between groups is also real, and is a far more controversial position even in this community; I advocate for the managed and non-coercive separation of black Americans from non-blacks over time, but it’s not because “I just hate the darkies and want them to die”. I have (what I think are) sophisticated reasons for believing what I do; I reasoned myself into this position over time, and did not start from a simple visceral aversion to people who look different from me.
A small number of people today even still believe that some races ought to rule over others, or even that some racial and ethnic groups should be exterminated! I don’t believe that, and I’ve never interacted with anyone who does (I suspect that the vast majority of people who do say these things are simply LARPing or doing a bit) but I don’t deny that such people are real. However, they are still not “racist”. They have actual reasons for believing that the conditions of the world are such that extreme measures genuinely are necessary for the preservation and improvement of mankind.
I could turn this around on you and ask: “Do you own pets? You do? Oh, so you irrationally hate animals? You want them enslaved in your home, rather than free to rule themselves?” And you would rightly respond, “No, I just don’t think humans and animals are precisely equal, and that the natural order of things is for humans to domesticate certain animals and to use them for our benefit, as long as we’re not overly cruel to those animals. I love my cat, but I wouldn’t let him drive a car, or vote in a presidential election.” But if I was absolutely committed to the proposition that speciesism is a useful and important concept, it would be easy for me to distort your beliefs to make them fit into a model that pathologizes them.
This is essentially what I believe that you’re doing with the term “racism”. Let the term go. It was never valuable to begin with. Nobody here cares if you think we’re racist or not. The term has become fully disenchanted. You might as well call us all heretics. Or “enemies of the Emperor of Assyria”. Engage with our ideas on the object level, and stop worrying about whether or not they fall afoul of your made-up boo word.
Well, it would certainly be convenient for you if we'd stop using a "made-up boo word" to describe the beliefs of racists, and I am (to a limited degree) sympathetic to your argument (put forward with more good faith than @The_Nybbler does) that "Racism has become so weaponized as to get my hackles up as soon as I hear it."
However, it looks to me like you basically want to argue for policies and an ideology that would, under any reasonable definition, be considered "racist" - you would just prefer we not use that word, because it now has a negative connotation, and you believe that your policies and ideologies are actually good and reasonable and therefore should not be besmirched with negative connotations. It reminds me of David Duke, back in the day, who did the same dance you and nybbler do, but less elaborately (and less convincingly, because you could practically see the wink and the smirk when he did it): "I'm not a racist, I'm a racialist. I don't hate black people, I just love white people!"
Yes, of course you're correct that hardly anyone hates other races because "they're ugly and stinky" or "just because." The most unreflective might simply hate them because they've always been taught to hate them, or because they have had mostly negative interactions with them. The more reflective will advance more sophisticated arguments like you do about IQ and HBD and how we should agree to an amicable separation so they can peacefully flourish in their own ethnostate and reach their full potential yadda yadda.
But I think insisting that "We should accept the reality that black people are dumber and more criminal and we should bring back segregation, but don't call that racism, because that's made up" is a nonsense argument and you're engaging in it for purely rhetorical reasons. Racism clearly does exist; we're just disagreeing over whether or not it's a bad thing. Would you argue that the many black people who hate white people are not racists? Are @BurdensomeCount's triumphalist screeds about how white people deserve to be made to lick the boots of his folk not racist?
This is precisely what I am disputing! I have to believe that you are not actually this dim and mendacious. My entire point is that it is not in fact reasonable to consider my ideas “racist”. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t mean it’s reasonable! You’re simply appealing nakedly to consensus and pretending like you’ve made an argument.
No, it doesn’t!
Yes! Obviously, yes! I am explicitly saying that these people are not racist. I have never said anything otherwise. Have you ever once seen me complain about “anti-white racism” or “reverse racism” or anything like that? No! They are anti-white, and I dislike them for that reason. Their beliefs are bad for my people, which is why I oppose them. But in many cases they are based on completely sensible, well-reasoned motivations. I don’t oppose them because they’re “racist” in some abstract sense of “it’s bad to prefer one group over another and to advocate in favor of that group, even when such advocacy negatively impacts another group” or “it’s bad not to like people because of their group identity”. It’s perfectly fine to do either! I just don’t want it done against my group, because that would be bad for my group. What about this is difficult for you to understand? Why do you keep acting like you’ve exposed some secret ulterior motive of mine?
Again, as both I and @SecureSignals noted, your argument here is structurally identical to an accusation of heresy. “Well, clearly you recognize that God is real, and the Bible is true - you just hate them!” And we are responding with “No, actually we reject your whole frame.” Again, just because a lot of people believe something does not mean it’s reasonable, or that people who reject it are doing so dishonestly.
What do you think I mean when I use the word racist? What do you think most people mean?
So your argument is "Racism is completely sensible and well-reasoned, so please don't use that word because it's a boo-word."
Exactly. This is the point you are missing. I understand that you are arguing that beliefs that are conventionally called "racist" are actually perfectly fine and reasonable beliefs. Go ahead and argue that.
I reject your objection to the word itself, not because I disagree with your ideology, but because I refuse to stop using a word just because you would prefer it not be used because it has negative associations. If I say your beliefs are racist, and you feel like that's a boo-word and I'm saying you're just like the KKK (which I am not btw), you are entitled to point out how your beliefs are different from the KKK's.But you are not entitled to tell me "Yes, I believe in racial discrimination and segregation, but don't call that racism because racism doesn't exist." You would like us to use some more politic, less pejorative word, but "racist," whether you like it or not, is an actual word that describes actual beliefs. The dispute is not over whether those beliefs exist, but what we should think about them.
Absolutely not. It's more akin to you saying "I do not believe in God and I think religion is fake and gay - but don't call me an atheist, that's a boo-word."
Let’s take a step back and check the extent to which you and I actually disagree.
Do you believe that there is such a thing as a slur? By this, I mean a word which is inherently designed to contain within it the implication that the thing being indicated is bad? And such that there would be no way to use the word in a value-neutral way?
Take the word “faggot”, for example. If I call a gay man - let’s call him Travis - a faggot and he protests by asking me to stop using that word, I can defend my usage of it in two ways. One of those ways - riffing, perhaps, off of the famous Chris Rock bit, is, “I’m not calling you a faggot because you fuck guys. I’m calling you a faggot because you’re mincing all over the place, acting all effeminate, and a man shouldn’t act like that. A straight guy can be a faggot too, if he acts faggy. Nothing specifically gay about it.” But of course, Travis is well aware of the history of this word, and that it was always designed and intended to target gay men, and simultaneously to conglomerate a number of behaviors commonly associated with specifically gay men and to anathematize those behaviors. So Travis understands that I am either mistaken or (more probably) lying.
The second way I can defend my usage of the word is to say, “I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to be a faggot! Being faggy is a totally normal and reasonable thing for a person to be.” Travis would likely respond, entirely reasonably, “Then why didn’t you use a word that doesn’t carry an insulting connotation? Why not call me, I don’t know, a queen? It’s not something everyone likes to be called, but at least it’s not a word that someone has only ever used to insult me.” If I were to reply, “No, I’m going to continue to say faggot. Everyone knows what it means, and yes, the vast majority of people who use it and/or have ever used it meant it insultingly. But I don’t think it is, so I’ll keep using it.” Do you think Travis would believe that I am being fully up-front with him?
By tabooing the word “faggot” and forcing me to describe him in a more value-neutral way, or at least to disaggregate the various assumptions contained within the word, Travis can at least get me to try and explicitly demonstrate that the various aspects of a supposed “faggot” are, independently, things worth caring about or drawing attention to. I would also need to demonstrate that such aspects do, in fact, typically come together in a particular package, and that the person whom I’m currently calling a faggot possesses all of those aspects.
What I’m saying is that “racist” has always been a slur. That it was coined by someone who intended it to refer to a cluster of things he thought were bad, and that it was popularized exclusively by people who all agreed that being racist was a bad thing. And that it is impossible to use in a value-neutral way due to its history. With which parts of this do you disagree?
Doesn't all of this apply to words like "wrong", "selfish", or "boring" as well? Sometimes people create words to refer to things that they think other people shouldn't do. Not all of those are slurs.
I continue to believe that the word "racist" is perhaps the best one-word description for the policies you've said you'd like to pursue. You see racial divisions between people as extremely important and would like to completely restructure society along its lines; I consider the extent to which you care about this, the extent to which you think racial division is important, to be extremely irrational - so irrational that the only way I can really try to understand it, though I would keep this to myself normally, is to start postulating things like trauma, depression, a ridiculously sheltered upbringing, and so on, to explain to myself how someone can get to where it seems like you are. I don't say those things as insults, I'm just trying to really make it clear that "that is racist" to me is not "you hate black people", it's kind of a statement in the epistemic universe of "you are depressed"; it's my own observation that you probably have a certain bias.
Setting the prescriptive stuff aside, at least descriptively, basically every American, including almost every attendee in the crowd at CPAC, would agree that the policies you're calling for can be accurately called "racist". The crowd at CPAC would immediately, reflexively jump to your defence once they saw that I was a left-wing person calling someone racist, but if you honestly explained your beliefs in front of the crowd in the way that you did above, there would be much clearing of throats, embarrassed murmurs, and rapid changing of subjects coming from the crowd.
Define “extremely important”. I think that they have some importance. Do you believe they have none? Can you honestly tell me, after, for example, the mass rioting and looting in the summer of 2020 - committed by people who saw themselves as part of a racial group or otherwise on behalf of that racial group, and believing that the distinct experiences of that racial group mark them as divided from mainstream “white” society - that racial divisions have zero relevance to American society? Surely this is not your claim.
Again, what specific ways do you imagine I wish to “completely restructure society”? Americans are already engaged in a Big Sort - masses of people moving from one state/region to another for reasons of cultural affinity and political polarization - and have been for decades. This has been true as well of black Americans, who have been migrating back to the South - to Atlanta and the surrounding area in particular - in order to be in cultural and special communion with their own identity group. This process is accelerating, and I believe that it will continue to accelerate as America continues to polarize along political and racial lines.
My hope is that this process leads to a gradual self-segregation of blacks into something roughly approximating a discrete de facto ethnostate, at which point the process of formalizing that reality can begin. None of this would require a radical restructuring of society. My model for this is the Velvet Divorce in the former Czechoslovakia, in which two distinct ethnolinguistic identity groups decided voluntary to part ways and to pursue the political sovereignty of their respective identities. The subsequent population transfers can be achieved peacefully and non-coercively, likely with substantial financial assistance and redistribution by the federal government.
This is honestly very amusing to me. I really think you need to talk to more people who disagree with you. I think you will find that a surprising number of fairly well-adjusted, reasonable, world-wise people have views not dissimilar to mine. I’m certainly not “ridiculously sheltered”; I attended very diverse public schools for my entire upbringing, in arguably the most racially-diverse major city in America. (San Diego) I’m not “traumatized”, and though I dealt with some mild depression during my mid-twenties, I have a decent if unfulfilling life, a steady full-time job, and an active social life. My belief in racial differences and racial friction is a direct result of ample observation of those realities throughout my life.
I understand that it may be very difficult for you to empathize with someone who has observed the same realities as you have, but yet who has reached profoundly different conclusions about how to interpret those realities. I’m not consumed by hate, nor do I spend all day perseverating about race. My boss is a black woman, with whom I have an excellent professional and personal relationship. The majority of my coworkers are non-white. I have zero issues interacting cordially with them. Yet this does not prevent me from noticing consistent patterns, nor does it require me to shy away from what I consider uncomfortable implications of those patterns. I take public transit every day, multiple times a day, which affords me ample opportunity to observe those patterns. I watch the news. I consume online commentary and video content. I read about history. Why is it so confounding or difficult for you to grapple with the idea that a person who does so could reach the conclusions I’ve reached?
I think you’re really underestimating the groundswell of people who are starting to flirt with a lot of the same observations I’m talking about. Go read the comment sections under police bodycam videos on YouTube. Some portion of the American populace - I will not pretend to have an accurate read on the actual numbers, since most of them at this time are still only willing to express such opinions anonymously - are beginning to reach the “we don’t have to live with this people anymore” stage. White flight has happened before in this country more than once; why are you so confident it won’t happen again? It already is happening again! What do you think people mean when they say they want to move to an area with “good schools”? If you ask them if it’s “racist” not to want to live around underclass black people, most of them would probably say yes. And then they would carry on not wanting to live around underclass black people.
The people at CPAC can prostrate themselves before the altar of Martin Luther King all they like, but a substantial number of them are beginning to suspect that perhaps there is in fact some reliable correlation between “color of skin” and “content of character”. They can say it’s a result of “culture”; the practical effect will be the same. In the aggregate, on the macro level, black people and white people have radically different preferences and do not actually thrive when forced into close day-to-day contact with each other, such that they are made to compete for public space and political power. If you disagree, how about you lay out a case for why, instead of just dismissing me as mentally ill?
Uh ... no, I don't think I will try to define the word "extremely" for you? Was there something unclear about the words "extremely important"? I consider this is a silly and pedantic demand.
If you're willing to radically restructure all of society to take racial differences into account, then you definitely think they're extremely important. I don't think I need a more precise definition than that.
Do you deny that you consider racial divisions extremely important? I don't see how you could deny that, so this entire line of argument just feels like a waste of time.
You are correct that this ridiculous strawman that probably a only single-digit number of Americans believe is not my position, yes.
Because they're so obviously and immediately falsified by the daily experience of people who live in racially mixed areas, and by the history you say you've read, that I have to visualise your brain as metaphorically surrounded by the things they put on horses' heads to prevent them from seeing sideways.
God, I hope you're wrong. That's all I'll say about that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that racist has inherently negative connotations for historical reasons. ("Racists" in the past wouldn't have used the word to describe themselves because it was essentially a universal belief. Segregationists in the 50s did not call themselves "racists" but they probably would not have shied away from the label either.) I do not agree it is a "slur." You compared it to calling someone a "faggot," but I think it would be more comparable to calling someone a "homosexual." A term that is both descriptive and at one time had very strong negative connotations, and still does with some people. If I call someone a homosexual because he's mincing around acting effeminate, it would still reasonably be understood as an insult. But if I describe people who engage in same-sex relations as "homosexuals" and am told that I shouldn't use that word because it's a slur, I'm going to ask them who decided that.
You advocate racial discrimination and segregation as reasonable and desirable, and you would like to taboo the word "racist" because to most people, "racist" has very negative connotations. I can understand why you would like to persuade people to use words without that baggage to describe your beliefs, but that does not mean anyone should feel obligated to accommodate you. Even here on the Motte, if someone just dismissed you with "Wow, you are such a racist," they would likely get modded, but describing your beliefs as "racist" is accurate. You may object to it, just as there are in fact gay people who now object to "homosexuals." Maybe you will be as successful as the "queer" community is at pushing for linguistic shifts. Or maybe you can rehabilitate the word "racist." But you are not the sole determiner of what a word means and how it is used, and just because it would suit your agenda to taboo the word or claim it "isn't a real thing" doesn't mean it does not, in fact, describe a real thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think a good comparison is the word heretic. Imagine you are an atheist and a puritan accuses you of being a heretic. Do you say "yes, you are right I am indeed a heretic." Only if you are trying to be provocative, but really you would just dismiss the entire frame of that question. No, I'm not going to admit to you that I am a heretic, I'm not going to accept your frame of the world by embracing that label, I dismiss the label altogether.
I don't have to imagine I'm an atheist, I am, and I'd happily confirm that I'm a heretic relative to any particular religion's dogma that defines me as such. I know that I meet that definition and don't have any problem with the word because it is has no moral worth to me.
The way that example is different from the one we're talking about here is that the people who meet a standard definition of racism don't want to be called racists. You imagine an atheist wouldn't want to be called a heretic, but why should we care? We've actively rejected that frame, so we're not embarrassed about being accurately labeled.
Whereas most racists have not actually rejected the social frame that gives rise to definitions and accusations of racism. They still want to be an upstanding member of that society, and they still want to think of themselves as morally correct within that society. So they want that society to drop it's own labels and definitions in order to accommodate them.
But could you be so blasé about labels like heretic or infidel if they carried with it serious social repression? If you couldn’t get a job, or lost all your friends or contact with your children if people knew you were an infidel, would you still happily accept the label? Racist is a label that still carries those kinds of consequences for those so labeled. Heretic and infidel really don’t outside of heavily religious communities.
Right, that was the point of my last paragraph.
People who meet society's current definition of racist just want society to change its beliefs or norms so that they're not punished. The idea that 'racist' is an incoherent or meaningless category is primarily a rationalization to justify that effort.
Saying that the social sanctions for being racist are too extreme and should be mollified is a real position that can be argued.
Saying that people are using 'the worst argument in the world' or 'labels as superweapons' to apply those sanctions to people who don't actually deserve them under the original purpose and intent of those sanctions is a real position that can be argued.
I don't think 'that word doesn't mean anything because I don't want it to' is a real argument, here. I think it's mostly a rationalization to try to dodge the issue, and society won't accept it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's very brave of you, you could write "I am le heretic!" all day long and get updoots on Reddit.
If someone though is sincerely accusing you of being an infidel or heretic and you confirm their accusation you are accepting their frame of reference.
When you say you will "happily confirm you are a heretic" it's a "what are you going to do about it?" play. But if you actually lived in a society where that accusation had weight and social consequences, and you opposed the conventional wisdom for what entailed heresy, you would not accept that label for yourself or use it to describe your beliefs.
As a factual statement, a non-believer is an infidel. That's what infidel means. As a factual statement, someone who believes in racial discrimination and segregation is a racist.
You can reject the religion that labels nonbelievers infidels, and you can reject a society that abhors racism, but the words still have meanings that accurately describe a set of beliefs or lack thereof.
Yes, there are social consequences for being a racist, as there were at one time harsher social consequences for being an infidel. I understand why you would like to remove the social consequences for being a racist. That does not, however, change the factual meaning of the word or your beliefs. You and @hoffmeister are trying to argue that "racism doesn't exist," when what you're actually claiming is "racism is good and shouldn't be stigmatized." Those are not the same arguments, and the objection to the word "racist" is one of tactical semantics, because of the negative weight "racism" has today. You would prefer a less freighted term - like, say, "racialist" - but that doesn't mean "racist" is not an accurate label. You might not like someone calling you a racist. I would not like someone flinging "infidel" at me as an insult, especially if it potentially carried more serious consequences. But I cannot honestly say I'm not an "infidel."
Yes, this is my exact point. If I reject a religion that labels me an infidel or heretic, I am not going to accept that label to describe myself or my own beliefs. This is really basic stuff, nobody does this, except for farming upvotes on /r/atheism which falls under the "intentionally provocative" mode of embracing that label only as a power flex.
I reject the religion that frames the entire concept of racism which, by the way, relative to world history is a brand new concept tightly coupled with our own post-WWII civic religion which is exactly what we reject. "Words have meaning", exactly, which is why it is stupid for you to demand that I accept the framing of a religion that I reject by embracing that word to describe myself. Words have meaning, so I refuse to play along with that garbage and humor a religious fanaticism that I oppose.
Sure, I don't expect you to say "Yes, I'm a racist." But under any definition of racist, your beliefs fit. You are objecting to the label, not denying the phenomenon.
So when you post that "racism doesn't exist," I will continue to point out that it does, in fact, exist, even if it is something that you would like to be embraced and relabeled.
The word racism, like the word "sinfulness", exists insofar as it is a mechanism for controlling the minds and behaviors of the laity. So you can argue that sinfulness exists all day long because there is a religion that has a dictionary definition for it, and it lays out a clear set of criteria for the behaviors that constitute sinfulness. That doesn't interest me, my interest is in dislodging the mind-control broadcasted by that word.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, that's how communication works.
Words have meaning, and have meaning in context. Just because you disagree with an opponent's worldview doesn't mean that words within the context of that worldview stop having discrete and coherent meanings.
There's a strict empirical definition of what it means to be a heretic to Christians even if I don't believe in Christianity, and there's a literally true answer to that empirical question. There's a strict empirical definition of what it means to be (for example) a racist under the utilitarian definition of racism, even if you reject the empirical racism as a politically meaningful concept, and there's a literally true answer to that empirical question.
It makes sense that you would want to 'reject the frame' if you think you can evade social sanctions thereby. That's a pretty normal thing to do, especially if you think the social sanctions are unjust.
But my point is,. just acknowledge the fact that by doing so, you are running from the truth and trying to muddy the waters. There's a true matter of fact that you're denying because you think people will react to hearing it badly/unjustly.
More options
Context Copy link
In a society where it’s illegal to be a heretic, one has to hide one’s atheism to avoid prosecution and the points here about wordplay are irrelevant.
If I’m an atheist in say Iran, then the label is not the problem, it’s that my deconversion from Islam is a tad illegal.
Even in the US the label of apostate or heretic doesn’t matter in terms of “accepting their frame of reference”; what mattered is how my family/friends/society responded to my deconversion. It’s the object level, not the label.
Similarly, if say one has clear racial animosity, many people can find that abhorrent without ever needing to invoke the word “racism.” That term has been abused, but the 1995 version was much less so.
The hard bit is that certain facts about reality do seem to be “racist” or “sexist” and the toxicity of these labels keeps polite society from understanding reality in certain policy areas, inconveniently. That doesn’t make it better for those who really just dislike a given race or sex and/or want to discriminate against them and want those labels to disappear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
An atheist is specifically not a heretic, and in puritan society atheism would in fact be a valid defense against charges of heresy.
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't a heretic 'a believer who practices some heresy' -- which lets atheists specifically off the hook on that charge? (and puts Puritans in jeopardy, incidentally)
So the right response would be something about glass houses I suppose.
“Apostate” is what we atheists get.
Still no go:
The term apostasy comes from the Greek word apostasia ("ἀποστασία") meaning "rebellion", "state of apostasy", "abandonment", or "defection". It has been described as "a willful falling away from, or rebellion against, Christianity. Apostasy is the rejection of Christ by one who has been a Christian.
So long as you never did believe, you are in the clear on that one. Although the Papists do feel that fallen Rationalists merit a shout-out, amusingly:
Apostasy a fide, or perfidiæ: Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc.
Rationalism has a specific technical meaning along the line of "denying the role of faith in holding beliefs".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As long as you cop to the fact that your beef is not fundamentally with some recent progressive redefinition of the word “racism”, but with the entire idea that racism, including old-school “I don’t trust the blacks” racism, is actually bad, which it seems to me like you have, then I respect your honesty but will do everything I can to prevent people who think like you from ever (re-)gaining political power.
Basically, I’m specifically annoyed by people who masquerade as your classic anti-woke Classical Liberals but who actually have white-nationalist sympathies, or who are mindkilled enough about politics that they don’t even know or care themselves what their beliefs are as long as they’re on the other side as the wokes, and I don’t think you’re masquerading or hiding anything.
I think many of your beliefs are wrong on the object level about human societies and psychology, I think your beliefs are still unbelievably unpopular in normie right-wing circles, and I hope to God they don’t gain traction there.
Edit:
I completely agree with you here, except that I actually think many left-wing anti-racists understand well that this is not how racism works. To me, it’s precisely the right-wing anti-woke contingent who don’t understand that people who actually supported segregation had a more complex internal narrative than “minorities are bad and I don’t like them”. To me, I’m the last person on this forum who needs to be told this (in fact, I just said it myself over the course of many more words, but in service of an argument whose conclusion was in the opposite political direction).
My impression is that the dance seems to be: right-wing Classical Liberals and I think that old-school pro-segregation racism is wrong, and you don’t. You and I think that old-school racism (though you wouldn’t call it that) was always more complex than people who deep-down believed “I just don’t like the minorities”, and right-wing classical liberals think “no, the idea of racism actually was that simple, and described most supporters of this ideology, until the progressives changed the definition and now it’s meaningless”. You and right-wing classical liberals oppose describing those “more complex reasons”, if indeed they do exist, as “racism”, while I think that the reasons are at once more complex than “I don’t like the blacks”, but will also call them “racist” (though I’m not a fan of the one-word description and will explain over and over again with many many words that the way I am using the word “racism” allows for more complex reasons - it’s not the conscious reasons that word is pointing at when I say it).
I have no evidence to support me, but I don't think that's constrained to right-wing anti-woke—I think that's pretty conventionally usual. (Consider how much people are taught that it was due to prejudice?)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's a tar baby. Grappling with it at all is a fool's game. If I won't consider calling someone "racist" a superweapon, why is it so important to know who deserves the label and who doesn't?
There are weapons below superweapon.
Calling someone a murderer if they're a murderer isn't a superweapon, it's a normal weapon.
Calling someone a murderer if they're gotten an abortion is a superweapon.
Similarly, if people are racist, calling them racist isn't a superweapon. It's a superweapon when you try to apply it to non-racists, but that doesn't mean the original term doesn't have a true and important context.
Calling someone "racist" is a superweapon; it's a superweapon even if it would have happened to be justified under some previous reasonable definition of "racist". As soon as someone who is not aligned with current progressive thought accepts the validity of "racist" being a super-evil thing, it will be used against them; they will find themselves in interminable arguments trying and failing to defend themselves against accusations of "racism" for doing such things as using the term "tar baby". Part of the reason it's a superweapon is that trying to defend yourself against such accusations is in itself considered proof of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This seems like a masked way of saying “that thing you call racism, I don’t consider bad”, but with some strawmanning and the pointless jargon of “super weapon” thrown in.
I didn’t say you must consider racism a “super weapon”. I said I’d like you to tell me whether you think racism in any form exists and whether you think it’s bad.
I think you’ve just said you either think it doesn’t exist or it isn’t bad, but again, I absolutely do not know for sure, and it’s exhausting to try to tease this shit out from people who really seem like they’re trying as hard to conceal it as they can.
If you start posting in a form, you should learn some of the forum's jargon. If you don't, and you encounter some, you should at least not criticize someone else's forum for using jargon that you, a newbie, don't understand, especially when you go on to ignore the point made with the jargon. A superweapon is an accusation which automatically makes the targets out to be in the wrong because of generalizations about a group.
You didn't say he should call it one. He figured out it was one all on his own!
That's a trick question, because the next question will be a gotcha which takes his answer but substitutes racism as you define it for racism as he defines it. If he says that racism is bad, you can then act as though he agrees that some progressive bugaboo that's commonly called racist is bad.
Can you describe some examples of this abuse?
And assuming you do describe them, can you then understand that Nybbler might necome vulnerable to this abuse if he said "sure, racism exists and is bad"?
Guy, I know exactly what the term is being used to mean; that’s precisely why I said it’s pointless jargon. I appreciate the gatekeeping, though. Extremely normal behaviour to unofficially require everyone posting be familiar with the collected works of one specific blogger, even to the point of constantly referencing some of the stuff from a decade ago that he’d probably rather you forgot about. (This last bit is a reference to the “paranoid rant” from way back when, by the way, in case it wasn’t clear.)
Highly good-faith argumentation on display here. Do I get to write fanfic about the various dishonest and hypocritical things you’re going to say to me and then assert my fanfic as indisputable fact, or do only you and nyb get to do that for me?
It makes sense to guard against this sort of tactic even if it's just a possibility. Nobody actually needs to be able to read your mind in order to realize "maybe I shouldn't say something that's vulnerable to tricks". If you personally weren't going to use any such tricks, blame the left-wing abusers you describe, for messing things up for honest people like you.
If you don’t care at all about speaking in good faith, then yes, it does make perfect sense.
So your rules appear to be “many left-wing people are bad because they argue in bad faith, but when I do that, it’s actually still the left’s fault because they made me do it”.
For the millionth time, I have to argue - why don’t they get this excuse? Why isn’t their bad-faith argumentation justified by yours?
If answering a question is likely to be met by an insincere gotcha, it's a bad idea to answer the question.
It doesn't matter whether you personally are planning to do that. It is sensible to take precautions against bad things even if you don't know for certain that the bad things are going to happen.
Not answering a question whose answer is likely to be used out of context isn't "bad faith argumentation".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're about a decade too late for this sort of thing to work.
What it means is that the term "racist" is used to indicate "ultra-bad-person-you-should-hate", that the criteria for "racist" are loose and variable, and that any attempt to pin it down is fruitless; no matter what criteria you can come up with to separate "the real racists who deserve the ultra-bad treatment" from those who don't will immediately be widened by those using the term in bad faith to cover people who shouldn't be.
I’ve been round these parts long enough to know that you wouldn’t have accepted it eight or so years ago either, and were saying much the same thing then.
To put you both on the same page rather than anonymously calling Nybbler out for things he said 8 years ago, you are reddit.com/user/895158, yes?
Incorrect. I am some other wrongthinker who must be rooted out and destroyed as quickly as possible. (Not nearly as notorious as that one; I only ever posted very occasionally.)
More options
Context Copy link
I have no idea if @papardus is /u/895158, but this sort of call-out serves no purpose but antagonism. There is no requirement that Motte users announce their other Internet identities. Yes, that means even a known troll and troublemaker from reddit would be allowed to post anew here under a new name and be given a fresh slate. (As has, in fact, happened, and in many cases, such people unsurprisingly immediately revert to their previous behavior and get banned.) There are circumstances where you could politely ask someone directly if they are someone you think you recognize from elsewhere, but "I just want to put you on the same page" ain't it.
Hey, thanks for the quick confirmation. I think it's important when the guy who declared the whole community an irredeemable den of racist deplorables that should be destroyed shows up to start pinning down racists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eight years is less than a decade, indeed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link