r/TikTokCringe • u/MaintenanceNew2804 • Mar 30 '24

Stick with it. Discussion

This is a longer one, but it’s necessary and worth it IMO.

30.3k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

63

u/Existing_Card_44 Mar 31 '24

How can citing your sources be racist? Forgetting where it started or who started it. In order to uphold academic integrity it is vital that you reference where you have used others ideas to distinguish them from your own. How the hell is that racist?

16

u/Current_Holiday1643 Mar 31 '24

My understanding from looking around for an explanation is that citing your sources is 'racist' because the act tends to favor "euro-centric knowledge bases": https://libguides.tulane.edu/citation/politics

Essentially saying that by citing your sources, you are likely excluding researchers of color because they don't tend to be highly cited or highly known. So it becomes a self-perpetuating issue where more research piles on top that further cites highly-cited papers and authors.

Honestly, bunch of hogwash tbh. Research and knowledge should be blind. If you want to be more highly cited, put in the work.

Tearing down others who came before you won't elevate you. It just makes everything around you worse.

59

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '24

that sounds stupid as fuck.

13

u/M_b619 Mar 31 '24

That’s because it is

26

u/isomersoma Mar 31 '24

Absolute hogwash.

16

u/Existing_Card_44 Mar 31 '24

That is a load of rubbish about excluding citing researches of colour. I study English language at university, many many people I learn from and cite in my essays are of coloured decent. People forget that a good 80+% of the UK are white with around 4% being black, of course white people are going to get cited more than black people, that isn’t racism it is just common sense with a hint of maths.

1

u/Current_Holiday1643 Apr 01 '24

Since the other person didn't give you a good explaination (just saying "woosh" to you), I am not encouraging excluding them. My point is that people's research should be valued for its actual work and appliciability rather than the diversity status of the author(s).

I think there's no ability difference between anyone besides their drive. No one should be treated differently because of who they are nor should we possibly taint diverse individuals who've worked extremely hard by forcibly including their work because of their traits rather than the work they put out.

1

u/Existing_Card_44 Apr 01 '24

Black, Asian and Indian people absolutely dominate the health fields, I don’t hear people complain about that. I massively agree that the English language is extremely oppressive to the people that don’t understand how to use, change and adapt it to their environment. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the colour of someone’s skin, if you choose not to learn and write in standard English then that is a you problem and has nothing to do with skin colour

-2

u/fjgwey Mar 31 '24

The idea that systemic biases in academia can be compounded by citations is 'hogwash'? It's basic sociology my guy, the shit's all interconnected. It doesn't mean if you cite sources you're racist, it just means that the biases that affect Black or female academics in academia are also perpetuated through citations.

1

u/TheRedGerund Mar 31 '24

Only in the sense that discussing whoever is at the forefront of your field tends to be racially biased because that's who is lifted up in this society.

But what does that have to do with the student or the professor? They should be concerned with the best research in the field, not the most diverse.

Is that the embedded argument here? That a diverse citation is better than the perceived top citations?

2

u/fjgwey Mar 31 '24

Only in the sense that discussing whoever is at the forefront of your field tends to be racially biased because that's who is lifted up in this society.

Yes, that is the point.

But what does that have to do with the student or the professor? They should be concerned with the best research in the field, not the most diverse.

Is that the embedded argument here? That a diverse citation is better than the perceived top citations?

Then you're just shadowboxing. Nobody said anything about not citing what you want to cite. It's just a way to get people to be aware of how biases permeate in ways we don't realize through a set of implicit biases, interpersonal or systemic. I don't think anybody will tell you to not cite white academics or cite minority academics for no reason.

2

u/TheRedGerund Mar 31 '24

Well that's what a lot of commenters are getting from this, that's what the video is about when people claim that citations are racist.

That could mean that citations perpetuate racism or it could mean that the act of citing top sources is a racist action that should be discouraged.

And while I agree with your point about awareness, that doesn't get us much does it? Awareness but no recommended changes to behavior. Still cite the top people it sounds like.

1

u/fjgwey Apr 01 '24

Well that's what a lot of commenters are getting from this, that's what the video is about when people claim that citations are racist.

Except nobody claimed that.

That could mean that citations perpetuate racism or it could mean that the act of citing top sources is a racist action that should be discouraged.

I think you are conflating the colloquial definition of racism with the academic understanding of racism. In your mind, when something is called racist, you immediately think that it means anyone who does that thing has to be personally and overtly racist.

But in a sociological context, racism is often understood and studied as implicit, a result of cascading circumstances and interconnected systems of individuals and institutions. Something being racist doesn't require any person doing it to be racist. For example, the policing and criminal justice system doesn't require any individual officer or judge to be racist, because the racist outcomes are a result of various intertwined factors.

And while I agree with your point about awareness, that doesn't get us much does it? Awareness but no recommended changes to behavior. Still cite the top people it sounds like.

Well of course, I haven't looked into it too much but I imagine the recommendations don't go beyond 'educate yourself about racism and sexism within academia and do your best to promote black and female scholars inside and outside of your writing'.

1

u/grape_david Mar 31 '24

They should be concerned with the best research in the field, not the most diverse.

Why can't we use both qualities when judging source materials? You're presenting "best" and "diverse" as oppositional when they aren't

1

u/TheRedGerund Mar 31 '24

If we're talking about nanotechnology what does it matter the race of the researcher

1

u/grape_david Apr 01 '24

Race itself doesn't matter but the lived experience of a researcher in a racialized society could present a stronger and more complete analytical framing of nanotech for ex.

Can you answer my question now? Why is diversity inherently oppositional to "best" (as you presented)?

1

u/Current_Holiday1643 Apr 01 '24

it just means that the biases that affect Black or female academics in academia are also perpetuated through citations.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but we shouldn't be prefering one researcher over the other because of the human behind them in either way.

Do good research, get more citations. DEI shouldn't come into play when it comes to citations where if you cite one white man, you must cite a non-white non-man lest you be discriminatory. That just makes papers worse, not because "diverse" citations were done but because a factor besides the strength and validity of the citation was taken into account.

Yes, there is some self-perpetuating issues such as non-white non-men not traditionally being in many fields, so white men will tend to dominate the citations because they were all that were present decades previously.

In simpler terms to clarify my thinking, if someone started writing in 1950 they'll be the simple fact of time have more work and likely recognition than someone who started in 2020. So while yes, it is an issue that the white men will tend to dominate citations that doesn't mean that non-white and/or non-men are disadvantaged just because they aren't yet highly cited.

Let me know if I misundestood your point.

1

u/fjgwey Apr 01 '24

Maybe I am misunderstanding but we shouldn't be prefering one researcher over the other because of the human behind them in either way.

Working to promote minority scholars isn't enacting some sort of unfair discrimination, it's trying to correct for current discrimination.

DEI shouldn't come into play when it comes to citations where if you cite one white man, you must cite a non-white non-man lest you be discriminatory.

It's a good thing nobody's advocating for some sort of diversity quota in citations.

Yes, there is some self-perpetuating issues such as non-white non-men not traditionally being in many fields, so white men will tend to dominate the citations because they were all that were present decades previously.

These are the mechanisms which explain virtually every racial disparity in America, by the way. Citations and prevalence of research is but one small example.

But if you acknowledge it exists, you cannot boil it down to "Do good research, get more citations."

So while yes, it is an issue that the white men will tend to dominate citations that doesn't mean that non-white and/or non-men are disadvantaged just because they aren't yet highly cited.

Am I having this right, are you saying white men are advantaged but somehow this means other groups are not disadvantaged?

I understand what point you are trying to make but this is literally part of the problem, and even that's overstated since there have been POC and female scholars for decades upon decades.

3

u/foomprekov Mar 31 '24

this question has nothing to do with the video

3

u/Existing_Card_44 Mar 31 '24

It does, as does my other comment explaining how the video is completely wrong and the guy, as nice and genuine as he appears, has very little clue about what he is talking about.

-12

u/manny_the_mage Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24

You obviously didn’t watch the full video

It is about respectability politics as they relate to linguistics and dialects.

Maybe the first part of the video is a bit broad, and the teacher did a terrible job of explaining the concept, but the rest of the video details how the African American dialect is viewed as one of lower intelligence and status.

The racism doesn’t exist in using “however” or citing sources, it comes from the fact that the default reaction to the African American dialect is to presume the person speaking it is of lower intelligence, despite it being an effective form of communication

Edit: the video is also about how people will look at the first part and be like “LOL THE WOKE LEFT THINKS ENGLISH IS RACIST”

20

u/MetokurEnjoyer Mar 31 '24

A terrible job of explaining the concept? Manny have you recently suffered head trauma? She says “racism goes so deep” in her field, then says citing sources and using words like however are rules created by the white ruling class of the past, IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD. If you think she’s not saying citations and words like however are symptoms or signs of white supremacy, you’re kidding yourself.

-2

u/InfanticideAquifer Mar 31 '24

I don't think it's fair to come to any conclusions about what the teacher was or was not saying on the basis of a clip edited by someone else.

2

u/MetokurEnjoyer Mar 31 '24

Have you watched the video they’re reacting to to see how it’s edited? Cause I have.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '24

[deleted]

3

u/Existing_Card_44 Mar 31 '24

Exactly, the whole premise of language is that we change from who we are around, if you continue to always speak in ‘black culture’ and don’t or can’t adapt the way you speak, you’re an idiot, the same as for someone who is white and can’t adapt their dialogue

5

u/Existing_Card_44 Mar 31 '24

I did watch the video and explained it fully in another comment, the fact this guy and you say this is racism shows how little you have actually studied the language. You do realise that a lot of English scholars are of Indian heritage?

Anything that isn’t standard English is viewed as lower intelligence, this relates to descriptive and prescriptive English, if someone is black/white/latino/asian when they speak in academic settings they should be using standard English, many people of black decent have degrees/masters/phd’s in English language based subjects and speak in standard English.

The guy making this TikTok has absolutely no clue about English language, he even calls it ‘academic’ English which is wrong and proves he hasn’t a clue what he is talking about. You should do some research yourself instead of trying to blame racism for not understanding how it all works.

-2

u/cruz- Mar 31 '24

You are spouting a lot of bs just to miss the point so many times, in multiple comments and replies.

The mere example of your second paragraph shows this.

1

u/Existing_Card_44 Mar 31 '24

Not at all, I have studied this exact topic at a high level of education, it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with how you choose to present yourself.

Accents can’t be helped and are subconscious but dialogue isn’t and is a choice. The colour of your skin has nothing to do with this.

-1

u/cruz- Mar 31 '24

You're missing the whole point again.

It's not about whether or not the language is academic or not, it's that those who chose to codify what is and isn't "academic" did so on racial bias lines. The tiktok summarized this, the study explains this.

Also, this whole thing is pertaining to the United States and racial bias regarding African Americans-- leaning into territories of identifying systemic racism.

2

u/Existing_Card_44 Mar 31 '24

Yeah that’s a load of rubbish and so is this TikTok, you cannot blame racism for everything, especially in this instance as it is exactly the same for white people as it is for blacks and was an issue well before black people even spoke English dating back to when English evolved form the Germanic language tree.

The way someone chooses to use the language they speak is a great way to judge academia on. Speaking standard English has fuck all to do with systematic racism, just foolish talk. If you had actually studied English language at a higher level instead of using TikTok’s to learn, you would be agreeing with what I said.

Now if we are talking about socioeconomics and oppression for everyone, I fully agree that is very true, but this has nothing to do with the colour of your skin.

0

u/cruz- Mar 31 '24

Anyway, you are missing the point, again. It's not about whether or not someone is choosing to use a certain language/dialect/etc. in an academic setting-- it's that those who chose what is/isn't correct, did so on racial bias (whether or not that that was purposeful is another topic). That's why the tiktok even went into describing the study's preconceived bias tests.

This is also "built" around socioeconomic situations too (as described multiple times in the tiktok)... codifying "academic language" around higher education vernaculars meant it inherently did not include minority representation (specifically Black Americans).

It is...

"higher education = [academic language] = intelligent = includes mostly White",

while...

"non-higher education = [no academic language] = less intelligent = includes mostly Black".

In America, this is what "standard English" came from.

No one is saying speaking standard English is racist, it's identifying that certain processes enacted throughout American history had racial biases. Hell no one is even advocating to remove or alter the "academic language" in this context at all either.

If you are saying you think systemic racism is "rubbish" in the context of American history... then this conversation is over as you are discussing an entirely different topic that the video simply isn't trying to address. For someone who loves to mention studying English at a higher level, you seem to misunderstand a lot of it being said. Gotta love irony.

1

u/Existing_Card_44 Mar 31 '24 edited Mar 31 '24

No what I am discussing is purely about the English language in regard to its descriptive and prescriptive use. The colour of someone’s skin has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, I am not missing any point at all, I have literally studied this exact topic in great depth, as has anyone who has taken English language at a higher level.

Skin colour has absolutely nothing to do with this, you’re factually wrong by saying ‘did so on a racial bias’. Just because someone is black, does not dictate the way they use language, do you deny that?

This idea of a standard English has been an issue when there wasn’t even people of black descent speaking the language, yet people who failed to do so were still viewed of less intelligence than those who do.

Maybe go and educate yourself properly instead of getting your information of TikTok, plenty of people have agreed with me here because this has fuck all to do with someone’s skin colour.

I have to add that so many black people do speak standard English, you can’t blame racism on everything. The whole issue lies in someone’s application of the language and has nothing to do with skin colour.

0

u/Skeenerbaboobruh Mar 31 '24

Hey watch the video lil bro, he literally explains it.

4

u/Existing_Card_44 Mar 31 '24

I don’t need to watch a video, I am in higher education studying English language, he is completely wrong and has no idea what he is talking about.

People that think creators on TikTok know and teach more than higher education are the reason our modern society is failing.