Apr 17, 2014
ssc
Read on (unread)

Someone Writes An Anti-Racist FAQ

Scott Alexander reviews 'The Anti-Racialist Q&A', praising its approach to arguing against racism and its display of epistemic virtue. Longer summary
Scott Alexander reviews 'The Anti-Racialist Q&A', an essay by blogger The Prussian on SkepticInk. He finds it astounding for several reasons: it's good enough to warrant specific criticisms, the author's political leanings are unclear, it aims to actually convince people, and it might be one of the first pieces Scott has read that argues against racism rather than just condemning it. Scott praises the essay's approach as showing epistemic virtue, though he doesn't agree with everything in it. He encourages readers to give The Prussian more traffic for this ambitious work. Shorter summary

The Anti-Racialist Q&A – inspired by my own Anti-Reactionary FAQ and written by blogger The Prussian on SkepticInk – is an astounding essay.

It’s astounding because it is a piece of writing about race that is so good that I actually have specific criticisms of it. I didn’t even realize how strange this was until about my tenth nitpick, when I noticed that I was nitpicking individual arguments instead of shouting at my computer “WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID?! WHY?! WHY?!”

It’s astounding because I have no idea what the author’s political leanings are even though he seems to go through great trouble to explain them. One minute he will seem like a raging leftist, the next he will be talking about how racism is just as stupid as global warming alarmism. Or talking about how racism keeps people of all skin colors from uniting in brotherhood against the real enemy, Muslims.

It’s astounding because I think it was meant to actually convince people. It’s written in a style of “I can see where you’re coming from, but have you considered X?” I thought I was the only person who had figured out that this worked better than “YOU ARE DUMB AND I HATE YOU. NOW PLEASE AGREE WITH ME.”

But I think the most astounding part is that it might be one of the first things I’ve ever read to argue against racism (NO GOULD AND LEWONTIN DON’T COUNT).

I mean, I’ve read a lot of articles condemning racism, and accusing people of racism, and being very upset about the racism inherent in society. But this might be the first one I’ve ever read to argue against it.

That is worthy of note. It is the exact opposite of the attitude in Cowpox of Doubt, like someone who says “Homeopathy? I guess the responsible thing to do is to read dozens of studies before I form an opinion on it”. This may not be a very practical philosophy or a good way to win friends, but it’s an impressive signal of epistemic virtue if nothing else.

I won’t say the FAQ gets everything right – just for one example, if I’d written it I would have dropped the whole “race doesn’t exist” thing as too complicated a question to be worth debating without a longer diversion into philosophy than most people would be willing to entertain.

But it’s pretty good for a first attempt at the genre.

Prussian deserves more traffic for having written something so ambitious, and I don’t have the energy to enforce the censorship I would need for a good comments thread about race, so please take your comments on his Q&A there, not here.

If you want to read more Scott Alexander, you can subscribe to his SubStack over here. Our Stats page show he's been writing more since being supported by his readers that way, so this is working! If you enjoy this fan website, you can also support us over here (and see how much has been donated so far).
Loading...