#Implicit Bias

[saturnniidae]

I love Mel and I'm glad so many people agree on her beauty, she is a gorgeous, breathtakingly majestic black woman and I'm glad she's appreciated but istg mfs only ever talking about how attractive she is rather than her intelligence and complex morality.

Everyone wants a morally grey woman character until she's black suddenly it's crickets in the crowd. Ik it's not usually intentional but (typically white) people have such an inate unwillingness to discuss poc (Especially woc) characters beyond surface level and it's annoying asf

[astrosouldivinity]

𝑾𝒊𝒄𝒌𝒆𝒅: 𝑨 𝑹𝒆𝒇𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒚𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑

~ 𝚃𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚆𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝙾𝚞𝚛 𝚁𝚑𝚢𝚝𝚑𝚖 𝙱𝚞𝚝 𝙽𝚘𝚝 𝙾𝚞𝚛 𝙱𝚕𝚞𝚎𝚜

🧹I had the opportunity to see Wicked, and it was an emotional experience that resonated deeply with me. The movie serves as a poignant mirror to our current social climate in America, particularly regarding how Black women are treated because of systemic racism. Here are my insights.

✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎

✯ As a Black woman, Wicked resonated deeply with me. I couldn't think of a better actress to portray Elphaba than Cynthia Erivo, who channels her experiences as a Black woman into the role in a way that feels both authentic and powerful. Elphaba embodies the struggles and resilience of marginalized identities (Black women), illustrating how society often seeks to harness our magic without truly valuing us. People recognize our power but attempt to appropriate it for their own gain, failing to uplift us or give credit where it’s due. This creates a sense of entitlement and a lack of genuine investment in our well-being.

✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎

✯ Glinda is a representation of the many performative allies I've encountered. Those who appear “nice” but whose kindness is ultimately superficial. They cling to their privilege and are unwilling to sacrifice it, even at the cost of the collective progress. It’s disheartening to realize that what seems like allyship is often a self-serving facade; you become a tool for them, prioritized only when it benefits their interests. Their support feels performative, as if they expect gratitude for merely acknowledging your existence. Glinda treats Elphaba like a token or pet even, enforcing an unspoken power dynamic that keeps Elphaba beneath her.

✯ Glinda is a coward; she desires to be seen as kind, yet her actions reveal otherwise. To her, maintaining power is more important than doing the right thing. Without her status, who is Glinda? This context reflects the lyrics from "Defying Gravity": “I hope you're proud how you would grovel in submission to feed your own ambition.” It perfectly captures the essence of performative allyship. She complicitly contributes to the suffering of others while projecting a facade of goodness. The saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Glinda is, in a sense, brainwashed; she is unable to see reality because she genuinely believes in the inherent goodness of the world. In contrast, Elphaba understands the harsh truth, shaped by her experiences of being an outcast and rejected by society.

✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎

✯ Emerald City wants to embody green but simultaneously vilifies Elphaba for being green herself. This parallel reflects how society often appropriates Black culture while rejecting Black people themselves. Throughout the movie, we see how easily people can paint you as the villain and undervalue you, undermining your capabilities no matter your qualifications. This narrative resonates with the experiences of many Black women who face constant scrutiny and doubt, even when they prove their worth time and again. Elphaba’s journey highlights the struggle against these unjust perceptions and the resilience required to rise above them.

✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎

✯ Marginalized for her skin color, Elphaba is made to feel inferior for being different. Yet, despite this, she shows empathy and compassion for those who lack it for her. Her ability to extend kindness in the face of adversity highlights her strength and resilience. This juxtaposition emphasizes the unfairness of her situation, as she navigates a world that often dehumanizes her while still choosing to uplift others. Elphaba's journey serves as a powerful reminder that true strength lies not only in overcoming one's struggles but also in maintaining compassion for those who may not understand or appreciate your worth.

✯ In “Defying Gravity,” Elphaba discovers that the minimal allies she thought she had were actually using her for their own selfish desires. Yet, she transcends above this betrayal, ultimately realizing her own power and ability to shape her own destiny. Similarly, in “Dancing Through Life,” Elphaba’s unique expression only gains validation through Glinda’s approval, highlighting how Glinda could have used her privilege to challenge the Wizard but consciously chose not to.

✯ Ultimately, Wicked invites us to reflect on the importance of authentic allyship and the responsibility that comes with privilege. It challenges us to examine how we can uplift marginalized voices rather than exploiting them for our own narratives. While the themes of this movie resonate with the current political climate in America, it can extend beyond just the Black experience; however, I find the parallels to be undeniably distinctive nonetheless.

✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎ 𖦹 ✴︎

✯ I would love to hear your perspectives on how the movie resonated with you and what feelings it evoked. Art is a reflection of life, and there’s so much you can learn from it. ☺️

𝔁𝓸𝔁𝓸- 𝓚𝓲𝓴𝓲 (𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚘𝚜𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚟𝚒𝚗𝚒𝚝𝚢) 🩷💚

𝙼𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚝 📋

• 𝙸’𝚖 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚖𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚏𝚕𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜 𝚘𝚗 𝚖𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚊 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚊𝚛𝚝 𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚏𝚞𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚎. 𝙰𝚜 𝚊 𝙶𝚎𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚒 𝚖𝚘𝚘𝚗, 𝙸 𝚕𝚘𝚟𝚎 𝚝𝚘 𝚎𝚡𝚙𝚕𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚊 𝚟𝚊𝚛��𝚎𝚝𝚢 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚘𝚙𝚒𝚌��, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚜𝚘 𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚢 𝚍𝚒𝚏𝚏𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚗𝚝 𝚜𝚞𝚋𝚓𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚜 𝙸 𝚌𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜. 𝙸𝚝’𝚜 𝚐𝚎𝚗𝚞𝚒𝚗𝚎𝚕𝚢 𝚎𝚗𝚍𝚕𝚎𝚜𝚜, 𝚕𝚘𝚕!

[guiltyidealist]

I just think we should start framing these things in the first person. I am not immune to propaganda. I have implicit biases, in spite of my explicit beliefs, which I need to keep in check.

[wesleysniperking]

Usopp’s identity

I understand that some people disagree with the idea that Usopp is Black, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I do believe there are those in the fandom who go out of their way to deny Usopp’s Black identity as a way to mask their unconscious bias. We all have biases to some extent—that’s inevitable. But to refer to people who argue for Usopp’s representation as a 'crying minority' is both insensitive and dismissive. It’s baffling how some can be so blunt and careless about race and stereotypes online, yet act differently in public. Now that Usopp’s skin tone seems to be getting lighter, the debate has become even more heated.

[televisionlassie]

“I’m not including duke because I don’t know how to write him 🥺”

He was introduced a decade ago, how have you not learned how to write him? Jon Kent was introduced AFTER Duke yet he gets FAR more attention from writers and the fandom.

I noticed years ago that this fandom has a problem with their POC characters where they’re either ignored, whitewashed, or villainized.

Both Damian and Dick are POC characters but this is often ignored or forgotten despite the fact that their childhood is shown with them having a connection to their culture. Other times they are both villainized for their actions against the white male characters in the bat family (specifically Tim AND Jason).

Duke is RARELY featured in any fan works despite becoming an integral part of the Batfamily. He’s been in a Batman movie (batwheels) and he’s been a focal point in the Wayne Family Adventures series (I’d argue the main character but I can’t say that)

What really pisses me off is that Jason Todd is glorified in comparison to the POC characters. In the comics Jason is NOT a good person, he literally kills people with no regard for how that will affect other people. He continues to try and hurt or kill his “family” members. His trauma is an explanation for this behavior but NOT an excuse, yet the fandom treats it as exactly that. There’s a whole deeper rant for me to give about my issues with how Jason is treated but the main point I’m trying to make is that Jason (a canon white man) is forgiven for all his actions despite showing no change and clearly not learning from them, but characters like Dick and Damian are not given any grace for their actions in a comic series from the 90s.

Can someone explain to me why Tim Drake would forgive Jason Todd, who tried to brutally murder and ridicule him, but not Dick who suggested he get therapy?

I’m tried of how Dick and Damian are treated by the fans of Tim and Jason but I’m especially tired of how Duke is completely erased from the family even though he’s been there for 10 years.

It’s so frustrating because this isn’t just in the Batman fandom or even just the DC fandom but EVERYWHERE, take a look at any show, book, comic or whatever form of media. Now take a look at how fans treat the POC characters. A few that come to mind for me are, Lucas from stranger things, Jal in skins, Sam Wilson, and I know some people might find it ridiculous but Ravi from Jesse (honestly his treatment among the writers and audience set the Indian community back).

There is such a simple solution to this problem, take the time to reflect on yourself as a person, think about how you felt about that one POC character that you thought was so awful. Think about what they did that made you feel that way and think about how you would feel if your favorite character had done the exact same thing. Knowing your bias is the first step to eliminating it.

[adragonsfriend]

CinemaTherapy, Tone Policing, Mace Windu

The CinemaTherapy video on Palpatine contains, I will say it nicely, opinions about the Jedi in general that I disagree with, (I love most of their videos, and their advice on avoiding manipulation in this one is useful and good, I hope it helps people, etcetera) but what I want to talk about is the specific moment where they mention Mace Windu for literally half a second.

At 14:07-14:29, they say, (copying directly from the episode transcript):

Jono: But what Anakin is not mature enough or mindful enough or experienced enough to be aware of, is that he's being steered right, and that Palpatine is doing it deliberately to drive a wedge between Anakin and the people he cares about and who care about him. At least a few of them do. Um, not Mace. Mace. Come on...

Anakin [ROTS clip]: I must go, Master.

Mace [ROTS clip]: No.

Alan: Do better, man.

Jono: Do better, Mace.

I firmly don’t know what explanation there is for this other than tone policing of a black man. Whether it’s CinemaTherapy’s problem specifically, or if they’ve just been drinking the fandom koolaid I don’t know, but it’s a problem either way. Let me explain.

The casualness of the remarks is wild. There is a full eyeroll, and several *theatrically* shaken heads. The transcript does not fully convey how out of place it feels watching it. It's almost to the point where I really want to give the benefit of the doubt and believe it's sarcasm, but the rest of the video does really not support that assumption. (If this is my failure of interpreting other humans, and it was sarcasm, then forgive me, I suppose).

I’m not even sure what aspect of Mace's behavior toward Anakin they’re addressing? The ROTS clip they choose to play of him—presumably an attempt to highlight whatever they’re talking about—is from Mace telling Anakin to stay behind when he's going to face Palpatine.

Of all the moments, if I was ever going to try and construct a “Mace is mean to Anakin specifically narrative,” I would not pick that one? It’s quite literally the chillest interaction they have in all three movies? If I was them, and trying to actually showcase an “Anakin’s doesn’t get enough affirmation or connection from the Jedi,” narrative, I would choose a scene like when Mace says Anakin won’t be trained. At least there you could make a argument that the council’s decision could’ve been explained a bit less bluntly, and that there’s something of a “conversations that adults should be having privately are instead occurring in front of a child” situation.

The casualness of the remark, the “Do better, Mace” and the knowing head shakes, those matter. The way they’re just tossed in, as if every audience member will instantly agree and chuckle at how of course Mace Windu is being mean and rude, they tell the casual Star Wars viewer that this is a universally accepted position, when it is not.

It also supposes the idea that Mace owes Anakin special emotional labor. A relationship therapist might, I don’t know, consider the relationship between Anakin, Mace, and the very relevant context of the interaction before making this judgement? Mace is not one of Anakin’s friends, confidants, or even a member of his lineage. He is, especially in the moment they chose to highlight, the leader of the Jedi Order. Anakin’s boss, to oversimplify, and the leader of Anakin’s people, to say the truth. He’s worried about the fate of the entire galaxy at that specific moment!

And guess what? He’s not even being rude, at all. He’s being direct, that’s it.

If they had chosen to highlight the line, "If what you have told me is true, you will have gained my trust," and talked about Mace not trusting Anakin, I might have been willing to humor this argument out of respect for the relevant textual evidence and for the sake of having some peace. But no, in their own words, this is about, "Anakin and the people he cares about and who care about him." This remark is about care, not trust.

And guess what again? Despite all of the other things he has to think about, Mace is considering Anakin’s feelings here. He isn’t telling Anakin to stay behind because he doesn’t want Anakin to be allowed to participate is the cool fun lethal lightsaber duel. He does it because Anakin is emotionally compromised. Even if you think of the the Jedi as flawed, you cannot think taking Anakin to fight Sidious would be a good, safe, or healthy idea? Would you take the person who you’re just figuring out has probably been groomed for years into a violent confrontation with their abuser?

Mace Windu is doing everything, thinking of everything, and caring about everything in this scene, and yet fans still find fault with him. They still find him insufficient and mean.

Opinions like these are not subtle, they are not cute, and they are deeply influenced by what Mace looks like in relationship to what to what Anakin looks like.

Step back, examine scenes for what actually occurs in them, rather than what larger fandom and larger society tells you is happening in them. This is the core of analyzing and creating art. What do you see in the world that others do not? I beg of you, see Mace Windu for once.

(If I was going harder, I would talk about how I think their very lame opinions of the Jedi are causing them to actually miss some of the depth of Sidious’ manipulation (including leaving out so much as a mention of the scene where Obi-Wan very explicitly tells Anakin he’s proud of him), but again, for the interpretation they’ve decided on their advice seems good, so I’ll leave it alone.)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jake Mackey

Published: Aug 2023

“Live not by lies.” —Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

A “virtuous lie” is a false, misleading, or highly contestable claim that is promulgated without qualification as flatly true in order to serve a purportedly emancipatory end, despite the fact that evidence of its falsehood, deceptiveness, or contestability is readily available. We live by these lies. They underlie a great many communications in the media, in academic journals, in government, and at elite educational institutions like my college.

For example, a recent announcement for a talk read: “In this lecture, [the guest] asks, what can we do about unkindness? How can [we] grap­ple with this messy, borderless concept, which has influenced so much of our post-1492 era?” The announcement does not so much assert as simply presuppose, and ask readers to accept, that “unkindness” is a distinctive characteristic of the post-Columbian world. Readers are invited to draw the inference that “unkindness” had less “influence” in the world before Europeans arrived in the Americas. Like much of the messaging on elite campuses, this one implies that the West in general and perhaps the United States in particular are uniquely culpable in history’s evils.

Another example: I attended a talk by a prominent author, a journal­ist, at a super-elite private high school. He took pains to paint North American slavery in the most gruesome of colors, as well one might for the edification of young people, who are inevitably ignorant of its true toll. In so doing, however, he told two virtuous lies: first, that slave-farmed cotton drove the expansion of the antebellum U.S. economy and, second, that increases in cotton productivity resulted from increases in the torture of enslaved people.

These two claims, both of which come straight out of the “New History of Capitalism” and, via Matthew Desmond’s contribution, are central to the 1619 Project, have been debunked.1 And yet these lies are virtuous. North American slavery was a moral abyss. One can never overstate its horror or overdo one’s condemnation of it . . . even if one lies. The lies of the “New History of Capitalism” are virtuous, serving purportedly noble goals, such as reparations, as the speaker took care to make explicit in his talk.

A third example: on May 21, 2020, as if to foreshadow the murder of George Floyd that was to come four days later, Kimberlé Crenshaw, a professor of law at both UCLA and Columbia and coiner of the concept of intersectionality, wrote in the New Republic that anti-black police and vigilante violence represented “modern embodiments of racial terror dating back to . . . the reign of white impunity rooted in slavery and Jim Crow” and opined that such violence was part of a pattern that amounts to “a kind of genocide.”2 In a similar vein, star attorney Ben Crump ti­tled his 2019 book Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People. Chapter two is titled “Police Don’t Shoot White Men in the Back.” Note that this was the tone of the discourse before George Floyd.

What we see in this catastrophizing rhetoric about genocide is the product of the virtuous lie that black people, and black men in particular, are being murdered by racist police with wild abandon. As Derecka Purnell put it in the Guardian: “We know how we die—the police.”3 This perception is the result of a virtuous lie. The lie promotes a distort­ed view of reality. It is a well-meaning distortion but a distortion none­theless, designed to bring attention to the cause, worthy in itself, of police brutality against black people.

The reality, of course, easily accessible to all online, is that while there are indeed disturbing anti-black disparities in the police use of nonlethal force,4 there do not appear to be racial differences in the way police deploy lethal force. In other words, police are, overall, no more disposed to kill a black person than a white person. This basic finding has been discovered and rediscovered again,5 and again,6 and again,7 and again,8 and again,9 and again,10 and again.11 And yet so taboo is this finding, and so sacred is the lie, that people have been fired for noting the former in order to correct the latter. Such was the fate of Zac Krieg­man, a director of data science at the news and information company Thomson Reuters. When he pointed out that Black Lives Matter, whatever the organization’s salutary contributions to our political life, was promoting a virtuous lie,12 he was fired.13

Indeed, Kriegman was not the only casualty of the virtuous lie that lethal police violence specifically targets black people. In 2019, a paper was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that found “no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic dispari­ties across shootings.”14 Due to an unusual set of circumstances, includ­ing a congressional hearing about policing, the article quickly became a flashpoint. First, it was officially “corrected,” though its findings were not altered. A few weeks later, George Floyd was murdered. Soon after, as the article began to be cited and contested in the ensuing debate about policing, PNAS asked two independent researchers to look into the article’s data and methods. They found that the article “does not contain fabricated data or serious statistical errors warranting a retraction.” Nevertheless, the article’s authors themselves retracted it, citing as their reason “continued use of our work in the public debate” about policing. PNAS chimed in, too, saying that “partisan political use” of the article warranted retraction.15 The virtuous lie and the political program it serves must be protected at all costs.

Virtuous lies are not confined to high schools, colleges, major media companies, and scholarly journals. Our government and medical estab­lishment increasingly run on virtuous lies as well. For example, in 2019, California passed a bill, AB 241, that requires “implicit bias” training as part of routine continuing education for physicians, nurses, and physi­cian assistants.16 The bill asserts the following: “Implicit bias, meaning the attitudes or internalized stereotypes that affect our perceptions, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner, exists, and often contributes to unequal treatment of people based on race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, and other characteristics.” And in case you missed the causal chain running from implicit bias through behavior to health outcomes: “Implicit bias contributes to health disparities by affecting the behavior of physicians and surgeons, nurses, physician assistants, and other healing arts licensees.”

AB 241 is wholly based on a string of interconnected virtuous lies about implicit bias. The first virtuous lie is that researchers have settled on a coherent and consistent understanding of what the term “implicit bias” means.17 The second lie is that whatever implicit bias may be, we know that it influences behavior.18 The third falsehood is that we know that disparities in health outcomes are caused by the behavior of implic­itly biased medical personnel.

The truth about implicit bias is easy to state: “[I]t is not clear precisely��what is being measured on implicit attitude tests; implicit attitudes do not effectively predict actual discriminatory behavior.”19 Moreover, with respect to disparate racial outcomes, it is important to note that measures that attempt to use implicit bias “to predict behavior find little or no anti-Black discrimination specifically.”20 This is good news! It means that racial health disparities are likely not wholly or even significantly attributable to the implicit bias of medical personnel.

What discrimination there is in medicine—and there surely has been and is discrimination—is based on entirely explicit attitudes supported by pseudoscientific theories. For example, it used to be a common prac­tice among medical laboratories to adjust the renal values of black patients to take into account black people’s supposedly greater muscle mass relative to white people.21 Such adjustments might, however, have caused doctors to overlook kidney failure in black patients. Again, some white physicians are said to believe that black patients are less suscep­tible to pain than white patients because, the theory goes, they have longer nerve endings and thicker skin.22 These are not “implicit biases.” These are wholly conscious false beliefs that can be dispelled by acquaintance with the truth.

Nevertheless, California’s medical personnel now must pay the opportunity cost of submitting to training for implicit biases, training that we know to be useless. In a sense, the mandating of implicit bias training is a fourth virtuous lie, for the fact is, “most interventions to attempt to change implicit attitudes are ineffective.”23 What we have, then, is an entire government-mandated regime of healthcare education built atop the foundational virtuous lie of implicit bias.24 Articles appear regularly to bolster the lie in journals that could once be trusted. If everything you knew about implicit bias in medicine came from the latest article about it in Science,25 for example, you’d know very little indeed.26

We live by lies like implicit bias because we suppose that doing so makes us good people. To question them is to align oneself with all that is oppressive. Our moral credentials are burnished if we condemn European contact with the Americas as the moment at which “unkind­ness” became a force in human affairs. We signal our ethical seriousness with respect to American slavery and continuing black socioeconomic inequality if we applaud rather than quibble when debunked theories are presented as plain facts to high school students. We stand ostentatiously on “the right side of history” if we endorse BLM’s narrative that black people are “intentionally targeted for demise” by police.27 Similarly, medical personnel in California now attest their racial innocence by submitting, ironically enough, to the proposition that their implicit bias is causing them to mistreat racial minorities and to a highly profitable training industry that purports to remedy it.

As in the case of the narrative about police killings, to question any of the claims built upon the virtuous lie of implicit bias is to court personal and professional disaster. Edward Livingston, then a deputy editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), discovered this in early 2021 when he went on a JAMA podcast and made the mistake of suggesting that accusing doctors of racism was perhaps not the best way to resolve inequities in health outcomes and that the solution might instead lie in addressing socioeconomic disparities.28 This marked him for destruction. A petition against JAMA gar­nered nine thousand signatures, the podcast episode was scrubbed from the web,29 an investigation was announced, he was asked to resign his editorship, which he did,30 and he was made the subject of a “restorative justice session” at UCLA medical school, where he teaches.31 Yet the spread of the miasma was not stopped by these expiations. JAMA’s editor-in-chief, Howard Bauchner, who had had nothing to do with the ill-fated podcast episode, fell over himself apologizing for the incident but was investigated by an AMA committee and soon had to resign his editorship.32

The fates of Kriegman, Livingston, and Bauchner, as well as my own reticence to push back on the high school speaker, reveal a central feature of the logic of the virtuous lie: to correct these lies is tantamount to opposing noble goals. Nobody wants to be the one who points out that a virtuous lie is not true. In the case of the high school speaker, any pushback would have come across as a defense of American slavery. In the case of “our post-1492 era,” to ask for evidence would be to mini­mize the enormity of the post-Columbian devastation of Native Ameri­cans and of the transatlantic slave trade, just for starters. Regarding claims of a state-sanctioned genocide of black people, to gesture toward research to the contrary would be to affirm the status quo and to oppose much-needed reforms.

The Epistemology of the Virtuous Lie

Let us distinguish the virtuous lie from two adjacent phenomena—Plato’s “noble lie” and Rob Henderson’s “luxury belief”—and then consider the choice of the term “lie.”

The noble lie. Plato introduces the noble lie in Book 3 of his Republic. Socrates, the lead character in the dialogue, urges that in order to found his proposed ideal city, they would need to craft “one noble lie which may deceive” the city’s three social classes, that is, the ruler class, the soldier class, and the producer class:

“Citizens,” we shall say to them in our tale, “you are brothers, yet god has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honor; others he has made of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron.”

The point of Plato’s noble lie is to reconcile people to inequality and their place in the social hierarchy, in order to create the ideal city, with a place for everyone and everyone in their place. The mechanism of reconciliation is a naturalization of the hierarchy not by analogy or comparison to metals but through the assertion that people of differing stations are quite literally made of different metals. The rulers are gold­en, the soldiers silver, and the workers brass and iron.

Luxury beliefs. Rob Henderson defines luxury beliefs as follows: “Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes.”33 People crave status symbols and signs of distinction. Some such signs are expensive clothing or tastes that can only be cultivated by those with surplus time and material resources. Beliefs can function as another status symbol, however. Henderson uses the example of “defund the police,” which is endorsed disproportionately by those of high socioeconomic status, who, as a result of living in places relatively invulnerable to crime, would suffer the least from defunding. This belief is a luxury for them. It has no material impact on them, but it signals their high status to their peers, who are equally safe from crime. Yet this belief is often unaffordable for poorer people, who tend to live in places that make them vulnerable to crime. “Defund” is a luxury beyond their means. If the elites, who dominate the media discourse and exert control in government, get their way and succeed in defunding the police, the costs of the policy will be borne disproportionately by the poor.

Virtuous lies versus noble lies and luxury beliefs. Virtuous lies differ from both Plato’s noble lies and Henderson’s luxury beliefs. Plato’s noble lie promotes acceptance of an inequitable social order, depicting it as natural, inevitable, and just. In contrast, the virtuous lie invariably produces dissatisfaction with the social order, which it depicts as illegitimate or unjust. The noble lie reconciles us to social inequality whereas the virtuous lie is intended to serve a project of dismantling inequality. Finally, the noble lie is ultimately metaphysical. That is, it purports to offer an account of the underlying nature of reality that can be adduced to explain social arrangements. The virtuous lie, in contrast, is concerned with the social arrangements themselves in their historical, sociological, economic, and psychological dimensions, as the examples above show.

Virtuous lies share with luxury beliefs both a commitment to emancipatory political programs and a concern to signal moral goodness. As Henderson’s example of “defund” suggests, however, luxury beliefs are inherently normative. They depict a prescribed course of action. Virtuous lies, in contrast, are purely descriptive. They purport to represent states of affairs as they exist in the world, for example, “police hunt and kill black people,”34 or “Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.”35 Virtuous lies like these provide the “factual” basis for normative luxury beliefs like “defund the police.”

Why call virtuous lies “lies”? A lie is, by definition, a false claim that is asserted despite its known falsity. A lie involves intent to deceive. I would not pretend to know that everyone who utters what I have called a virtuous lie knows that it is false (or at least highly questionable) and intends to deceive. Surely some do, but I imagine that many or even most who repeat virtuous lies do so sincerely, because they know no better.

Why might so many know no better? The term “lie” seems especially fitting here. Unlike the unwitting laypeople who repeat them, those who invent and promulgate these untruths, including activists, media compa­nies, and law professors, are in a good position to know better and have an epistemic obligation to the truth that should give them pause.

There is something gratuitous about virtuous lies, not only when they are uttered cynically by knowledge-economy elites but even when they are uttered unwittingly and sincerely. Respected professors of law who specialize in racial issues and major media companies whose own data scientists have alerted them to the truth have no excuse. But neither do laypeople, really. The information that problematizes or even de­bunks virtuous lies is not kept locked away. Anyone who even halfway cares about what the world was like before 1492, whether slavery was central to the economic surge of the early United States, whether there is an epidemic of racist cops murdering black people, or whether implic­it bias is a well-defined construct that has a clear effect on behavior can find the truth with the click of a mouse, or at least a vigorous debate, that should cause one to back off of strong claims.

Those given to whataboutery will have been champing at the bit to utter one word in response to my theory: Trump. The man is, after all, a liar of world-historic proportions. One of his most vicious lies is that the 2020 election was stolen. Indeed, according to a recent CNN poll, 63 percent of Republicans still believe that Biden “did not legitimately win enough votes to win the presidency.”36 But Trumpian lies, and right-wing lies more generally, are manifestly not “virtuous” insofar as they are outwardly self-serving, even if the teller believes in the ultimate truth of the cause. They make no pretense of serving an emancipatory project. They serve a project of acquiring political power and they do so nakedly. In a sense, this nakedness is refreshing. After all, virtuous lies, too, are promulgated in pursuit of political power, but under cover of the pretense of fighting it.

Vicious Consequences of Virtuous Lies

Why not just embrace the most emancipatory virtuous lies? After all, they promise to inspire the activism and political will needed to address some of our most urgent problems. The answer is that virtuous lies offer only a false promise. Let me say why.

First, the internet has put any citizen with even a modicum of curiosity and a free Sunday afternoon in a position to adjudicate these claims for herself. We are in an era in which you simply cannot keep information from people anymore, and you cannot lie to them.

Second, the lies will alienate at least as many people as they inspire. The virtuous lie is not a reliable formula for any political change apart from greater polarization. In other words, a commitment to these lies on the part of the media and our knowledge-producing class more broadly means that there will always be a number of Americans who embrace the lies out of ignorance or tribal loyalty. There will also, however, be a growing number of Americans who, as I have already suggested, will figure out that they are being lied to. This will create, or is already creating, a division in which a side consisting of tribally committed virtuous liars faces off against a side consisting of people who resent being lied to. This division is and will be toxic to our politics and hence to our democracy. It will only promote the rise of more Trump-like figures, who feed on and exacerbate the resentment of voters who dislike being lied to.

Let’s take just one of the virtuous lies discussed above, the lie about racist murders by police, and follow it through. Some might say, sure, perhaps it is not quite true that the police go out hunting for black people. But this fib is innocent because it has beneficial effects. The proof is right before us: after all, it has spurred a massive nationwide and even worldwide movement for change. What could be bad about such a lie?

I would answer that the lie is not worth it. The cost of the lie is paid as a psychological toll on all Americans, but on black Americans especially: the needless psychological suffering that results from hearing that you are being “hunted” by agents of the state in your own country. As Musa al-Gharbi put it in these pages, speaking of such narratives more broadly:

For people of color, getting “educated” in America is to be cud­geled relentlessly with messages about how oppressed, exploited, and powerless we are, and how white people need to “get it together” to change this (but probably never will). Narratives like these grew especially pronounced during the post-2011 “Great Awokening.” The internalization of these messages may contribute to the observed ideological gaps in psychic distress among women and people of color.37

The cost of the lie is paid as damage to our perceptions of black and white race relations. Gallup has polled Americans on this almost every year since 2001.38 In 2001, 70 percent of black Americans said race relations were good. In 2021, not even half as many, 33 percent, could make that affirmation. The drop-off began in earnest in 2013, right around when use of terms like “racism” began to rise spectacularly in the media,39 and the newly formed Black Lives Matter began its messaging campaign.

The cost of the lie is not only ill-conceived campaigns to “defund,”40 but also damage to (already strained) trust between communities and police, especially black communities, whose disproportionate victimization by criminals shows they need policing, good policing, the most.41 The cost of the lie is black Americans’ sense of alienation within their own country. The cost of the lie is the creation of preconditions for destructive rioting the next time a cop is caught on camera killing a black person,42 whether under legally justifiable circumstances (such as to save lives) or not.

There is a final cost to be reckoned with. Police killings do not ultimately constitute a distinctly “black” issue, and a narrative that casts it as such has inherent limitations. First, the narrative’s framing is divi­sive: there are “black” issues and there are “white” issues, but there are no “American” issues that affect us all. This framing requires activists to leverage enough guilt or empathy among Americans who are not black to enact a “black” agenda of reform. Moreover, the “hunting black people” narrative is impotent to make common cause with those seeking justice for unjustified police killings of people of other races. (Almost half of the people killed by police are white.43) This impotence undermines the possibility of a broad-based, nonpartisan movement for reform.

For example, when police (both, as it happens, Latino) in Fresno, California, killed an unarmed white teenager, Dylan Noble, in 2016, and the killing was caught on video,44 Noble’s friends, family, and sympathizers initiated months of protests. But when protesters displayed “White Lives Matter” placards, perhaps inspired by Black Lives Matter, they were predictably decried as “racist.”45 What if there had been a movement for police reform not based on identity politics with which Dylan Noble’s family and supporters could have made common cause? Later, a young black man, a rapper, Justice Medina, organized a protest in Fresno for all the lives lost to police violence, including that of Dylan Noble. He named Dylan Noble in one of his songs, and he sought to distance himself from BLM: “I’m out here for the human race,” he said.46

Medina is precisely right: police reform is not well addressed through identity politics, in which one group’s grievances are pitted against another group’s perceived sins, biases, and privileges. The issue of police violence falls instead within the broader purview of American identity, which emphasizes our mutual bond and shared interests as citizens. Writing of the killing of a white woman, Hannah Fizer, by a police officer in June 2020, Adam Rothman and Barbara Fields point out that “a successful national political movement must appeal to the self-interest of white Americans” and advise that “those seeking genuine democracy must fight like hell to convince white Americans that what is good for black people is also good for them.” Only in this way will we find “the basis for a successful political coalition rooted in the real conditions of American life.”47

The upshot is that virtuous lies, whether about the police or about any other matter of concern, will get us nowhere. Only if the media and knowledge-producing classes eschew such lies and hew closer to the truth can we hope to depolarize our discourse, restore faith in our information-generating institutions, and bring together a broad swath of the country in solidarity to confront the challenges that face all of us as American citizens.

-

[ Sources: see Notes. ]

[shrinkrants]

In 2017, a young Black woman of Togolese descent, TG, visited the emergency department due to distress and panic attacks related to previous sexual assaults. She was admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit and diagnosed with psychosis. Upon discharge, she was prescribed perphenazine, a first-generation antipsychotic with greater side effect risks. Despite her symptoms being primarily related to mood and trauma, her dosage was increased by subsequent providers. In 2021, a team at Yale Department of Psychiatry determined that she had been misdiagnosed with schizophrenia due to racial bias. After a thorough review of her medical records and social history, TG received a re-diagnosis of major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Adjusting her medication led to a significant improvement in her depression, anxiety, and panic attacks.

In an article published in Harvard Review of Psychiatry, physicians at the Yale Department of Psychiatry present the case of TG to explore the mechanisms behind what they call “psychiatry’s longest-standing inequities born of real-time clinician racial bias” and its iatrogenic harm to patients who come to seek their help for other mood or trauma-related disorders. They write:

“For TG, she had consistently been telling providers about her sexual trauma for years only to have ED and outpatient providers doubt her report of abuse as a possible ‘delusion.’ During her second ED encounter in August 2018, documentation depicts her testimony using appallingly insensitive language, including ‘increasingly bizarre statements about supposed rape.’” Here, we can see how “biased perceptions of dishonesty intersect with bias against believing sexual assault survivors.”

[thoughtportal]

why are we looking? and why aren't we looking?

the most important time to check is when you are least likely to check

[eelhound]

"No one ever says dismissively of a potential CEO candidate that he's too short. This is quite clearly the kind of unconscious bias that the IAT [Implicit Association Test] picks up on. Most of us, in ways that we are not entirely aware of, automatically associate leadership ability with imposing physical stature. We have a sense of what a leader is supposed to look like, and that stereotype is so powerful that when someone fits it, we simply become blind to other considerations.

And this isn't confined to the executive suite. Not long ago, researchers who analyzed the data from four large research studies that had followed thousands of people from birth to adulthood calculated that when corrected for such variables as age and gender and weight, an inch of height is worth $789 a year in salary. That means that a person who is six feet tall but otherwise identical to someone who is five foot five will make on average $5,525 more per year. As Timothy Judge, one of the authors of the height-salary study, points out: 'If you take this over the course of a 30-year career and compound it, we're talking about a tall person enjoying literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of earnings advantage.'"

- Malcolm Gladwell, from Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, 2005.

[alwaysbewoke]

There was/is a study by Joshua Correll that tested how skin color affected a police officer's decision to shoot. In the study, when the threat was white, the cops were so reluctant to shoot that they allowed the threat to harm them or others. When the threat was Black, they were much quicker to shoot. However they were so quick to shoot when the race was Black that they would shoot innocent Black ppl during the test. The study was/is called "Police Officer Dilemma." This "training" in this video is how it happens because we are a deeply deeply racist country.

[saturnniidae]

Worst thing ever is when a tv show has a racially diverse cast of main characters, but the fandom favorite is The White One.

[odinsblog]

Inviting Iowa was disrespectful, and the way she said, "...so we'll have them come" was the giveaway. Having the LSU Tigers come to the White House was little more than a perfunctory afterthought in her mind. The important thing was having the white team from Iowa visit. And you cannot convince me that Jill’s comment about “good sportsmanship” wasn’t aimed at Angel Reese. Foul.

[lichenart]

I have implicit biases and you probably do too! The important thing is I do my best to recognize and work on them. I have an online friend who I chat with on discord. I turned on voice chat and realized they do not have an American accent. I then realized I would probably had thought differently of them if I had heard their voice first. Now I can fix that and go on as a better person. It is better to recognize you are not perfect. I believe it is more virtuous to start out imperfect and have to work to be a better person than start out golden, because working to being better shows you really care. AND DON’T YOU DARE TRY AND SAY YOU DON’T HAVE BIASES WHEN THE PERSON YOU ARE BIASED TOWARDS POINTS IT OUT. Refusing to acknowledge and work on faults is immature and shows you won’t fix it when you hurt people. “But I’m neurodivergent, or gay, or *insert marginalized identity here*” That doesn’t make you immune to bias and propaganda. Just be mature and accept you make mistakes and so you don’t hurt someone next time!!!!

[sharknado-three]

I have a diagnosed girlboss-malewife bias.

[penwrythe]

Not going to say much on what's happening in the OSC, but heavily lambasting people without actually talking to them about what they have done wrong, especially if they admit didn't know much about the context of the issue, is not helpful.

You can at least educate them about it. That's fucking more productive than blasting them on your account. Also, since this is on the topic of racism (and you know who's awful video as well), I feel the need to say this:

If you are white, don't butt in on an issue that harmed BIPOC. Just listen to us, or at least be supportive.

Also, for white allies, you don't need to callout every single other white person for their mistakes. I honestly rather you try to talk to them first to help them understand. I have concerns if you do more calling out over actually having a conversation.

You are not helping if you do this.

If other BIPOC are trying to tell you that you are not helping, listen please.

You don't have to hit people over the head for them to learn. You really don't need to. Just at least, reach out to them. Please.

You can hold people accountable and help them understand what they done wrong at the same time!

With this said, I highly suggest watching this video by

F. D. Signifier on how not to be an ally: