Jay Smooth Urges Tackling Conduct Over Character in Race Disputes

How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist — Jay Smooth

Jay Smooth

Accusing offenders of being racist derails accountability into an unwinnable debate over their inner motives, allowing them to escape scrutiny unless critics focus strictly on tangible actions.

AI-assisted summary of How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published:

Key ideas

  • Addressing racially offensive speech effectively requires separating the 'what they did' conversation from the 'what they are' conversation, focusing strictly on observable words rather than internal character. (0:05)
  • Accusing someone of being a racist deep down weakens accountability by turning a concrete issue into an unprovable debate about inner intentions and personal soul. (0:05)
  • Public figures and PR teams routinely exploit identity-focused critiques by pivoting to character defenses, drowning tangible transgressions in rhetorical distraction. (1:47)
  • Accountability should follow the pickpocket analogy: just as one recovers a stolen wallet without debating if the culprit identifies as a thief, one must focus solely on the impact of harmful words. (1:47)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by Jay Smooth on July 21, 2008, this video provides a strategic approach to handling difficult racial confrontations, encapsulated by the description's note that 'You gotta use some strategery.' The video description also points viewers toward Smooth's follow-up TEDx Talk that continues the discussion, alongside his Twitter handle.

## TL;DR Jay Smooth argues that when confronting someone who makes a racially offensive remark, the key is distinguishing between a 'what they did' conversation and a 'what they are' conversation. Leaping to judge a person's inner character allows them to deflect blame into an unwinnable, abstract debate over their soul—a rhetorical escape hatch frequently deployed in celebrity public relations apologies. Instead, Smooth illustrates through a pickpocket analogy that confrontations must focus strictly on the concrete impact of specific words and actions. By focusing solely on holding people accountable for what they did rather than psychoanalyzing who they are, the confrontation avoids diversion and remains effective.

## Atmosphere & style The video carries an incisive, conversational, and coolly pragmatic tone, blending relaxed video-blog intimacy with sharp rhetorical deconstruction. Smooth uses vivid, witty imagery—such as PR 'Judo flips' and 'rhetorical Bermuda Triangles'—to demystify an emotionally combustible topic without sounding preachy or combative. Watching it feels like receiving tactical, common-sense counsel from a calm and insightful friend who cuts through public posturing to reveal the practical mechanics of everyday communication.

## Bulletin - [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) Addressing racially offensive speech effectively requires separating the 'what they did' conversation from the 'what they are' conversation, focusing strictly on observable words rather than internal character. - [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) Accusing someone of being a racist deep down weakens accountability by turning a concrete issue into an unprovable debate about inner intentions and personal soul. - [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=107s) Public figures and PR teams routinely exploit identity-focused critiques by pivoting to character defenses, drowning tangible transgressions in rhetorical distraction. - [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=107s) Accountability should follow the pickpocket analogy: just as one recovers a stolen wallet without debating if the culprit identifies as a thief, one must focus solely on the impact of harmful words.

## Key takeaways - [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) Race has become an unavoidable topic in media, making it inevitable that everyone will eventually need to confront someone over a racist remark. - [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) Having a clear strategic plan beforehand is essential to navigating confrontations about racial remarks effectively. - [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) The core rule of effective confrontation is maintaining the distinction between the 'what they did' conversation and the 'what they are' conversation. - [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) The 'what they did' conversation focuses objectively on specific words and actions and explains why that conduct is unacceptable. - [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) The 'what they are' conversation extrapolates from behavior to judge a person's inner character, motives, and essence. - [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) Targeting someone's underlying character lets them off the hook because internal intentions can only be guessed at and never definitively proven. - [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) Calling someone a racist feels like a decisive blow but actually derails the confrontation into an unwinnable debate over personal identity. - [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=107s) Celebrity PR strategies routinely execute rhetorical pivots to transform concrete behavioral criticisms into defenses of the person's character and soul. - [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=107s) Defenders frequently use claims like 'not having a racist bone in their body' to deflect from blatantly offensive statements. - [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=107s) The 'what they are' conversation acts as a rhetorical Bermuda Triangle where accountability dissolves into empty posturing and scapegoating. - [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=107s) If a pickpocket steals your wallet, you pursue them to get the wallet back, not to psychoanalyze whether they identify as a thief in their heart. - [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=107s) Confrontations over offensive speech should treat offenders like pickpockets, holding them strictly accountable for the tangible impact of their actions rather than who they are.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) The "What They Did" vs. "What They Are" Conversation

No matter what channel people tune into or what feed they aggregate, race has become the inescapable "final frontier" of public discussion. Jay Smooth points out that when everyone everywhere is constantly talking about race, it becomes an inevitable certainty that you will eventually have to tell someone that something they said sounded racist. Because this encounter is bound to happen, people need a deliberate plan in place for how to handle that uncomfortable confrontation rather than stumbling into it unprepared. According to Jay Smooth, navigating this successfully comes down to understanding one fundamental distinction: “The most important thing that you've got to do is remember the difference between the what they did conversation and the what they are conversation.”

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Two Approaches to Addressing Racist Remarks accDescr: A comparison showing the effective 'what they did' conversation versus the ineffective 'what they are' conversation. subgraph S1["What They Did Conversation (Recommended)"] A["Focus on words and actions"] --> B["Explain why conduct was unacceptable"] B --> C["Accountability for impact"] end subgraph S2["What They Are Conversation (Avoid)"] D["Extrapolate to judge character"] --> E["Speculate on motives and soul"] E --> F["Argument derails into empty debate"] end ```

The "what they did" conversation—also described as the "that thing you said was racist" conversation—focuses strictly and objectively on a person's tangible words and deeds, explaining clearly why those specific actions were unacceptable. In contrast, the "what they are" conversation—the "I think you are a racist" approach—leaps from the observable facts to drawing broad conclusions about a person's underlying character, motives, and internal nature. Jay Smooth warns that this second approach is precisely the trap people should avoid. Once the conversation pivots to inner intentions, you enter territory that can only ever be guessed at and never proven, giving the other person an immediate opening to derail the entire argument. Addressing the counterintuitive nature of this strategy, Jay Smooth notes: “When you say I think he's a racist that's not a bad move because you might be wrong that's a bad move because you might be right because if that dude really is racist you want to make sure you hold him accountable and don't let him off easy.” Going straight for the jugular by telling someone, "I think your ass is racist," may feel like the hardest punch, but it actually lets the offender off the hook by turning the dispute into an unwinnable debate over their personal identity.

[01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=107s) The Celebrity Playbook and the Pickpocket Analogy

The danger of straying into a person's identity is on full display whenever a public figure or celebrity gets caught making an offensive remark. Jay Smooth explains that these controversies typically start as a straightforward "what they did" conversation based on specific statements. However, as soon as the celebrity and their PR surrogates step in front of the camera, they perform rhetorical "Judo flips" to pivot the spotlight onto who the person is deep down. Defenders immediately plead character references: they insist they have known the person for years, declare they know for a fact the offender does not have a racist bone in their body, and indignantly ask how critics dare claim to know what is inside someone's soul over an isolated comment about watermelon, tap dancing, or going back to Africa.

By the time critics try to redirect attention back to the concrete facts—arguing that one does not need a window into someone's soul to know those remarks were inappropriate—it is already too late. As Jay Smooth puts it: “The what they are conversation is a rhetorical Bermuda Triangle where everything drowns in a sea of empty posturing until somebody just blames it all on hip-hop and we forget the whole thing ever happens.”

To cut through this evasion, Jay Smooth offers a grounding analogy about theft: - If someone picks your pocket on the street, you do not chase them down an alley to psychoanalyze whether they identify as a thief deep down in their heart. - You pursue them for one simple, concrete reason: to get your wallet back. - What matters is not what the person is in the abstract, but holding them accountable for what they physically did. - Confrontations about racial remarks must operate under the exact same standard: “Treat them like they took your wallet and focus on the part that matters holding each person accountable for the impact of their words and actions.” - Jay Smooth leaves the audience with a simple closing rule: “I don't care what you are I care about what you did.”

## Notable quotes > [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=5s) The most important thing that you've got to do is remember the difference between the what they did conversation and the what they are conversation. — Jay Smooth

> [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=107s) The what they are conversation is a rhetorical Bermuda Triangle where everything drowns in a sea of empty posturing until somebody just blames it all on hip-hop and we forget the whole thing ever happens. — Jay Smooth

> [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&t=107s) I don't care what you are I care about what you did. — Jay Smooth

## Mentioned Jay Smooth

## Video description Please also check out my TEDx Talk, that picks up where this left off! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbdxeFcQtaU

http://twitter.com/jsmooth995

You gotta use some strategery.

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc)

中文简报

Jay Smooth呼吁在种族争议中关注行为而非人品 指责冒犯者是种族主义者会使问责偏离轨道，演变成一场无法得出结论的动机辩论；除非批评者严格关注切实行为，否则对方就能借此逃避审视。 Jay Smooth认为，在面对发表种族冒犯言论的人时，关键在于区分“他们做了什么”与“他们是什么样的人”。急于评判当事人的内心人品，会给对方借口将责任转移到关于其心灵的抽象且无休止的辩论中——这也是名人公关道歉中常用的修辞脱身伎俩。相反，Smooth通过扒手类比指出，对质必须严格聚焦于具体言行的切实影响。只有将重点放在让当事人对其所作所为负责，而非对其人格进行心理分析，对质才能避免被转移焦点并保持实效。 有效应对种族冒犯性言论，需要将探讨“他们做了什么”与探讨“他们是什么样的人”区分开来，严格聚焦于可见的言辞而非内在人品。 (0:05) 指责某人骨子里是种族主义者会削弱问责力度，因为这会将具体问题转化为关于内心动机和个人灵魂的无法证实的争论。 (0:05) 公众人物和公关团队经常利用针对身份的批评，转向为人品辩护，从而用修辞手段转移焦点，掩盖切实的过错。 (1:47) 问责应遵循扒手类比：正如找回被盗钱包时无需争论对方是否自认是小偷一样，人们必须完全聚焦于有害言论带来的影响。 (1:47)

Source quotes

[0:05] Jay Smooth: The most important thing that you've got to do is remember the difference between the what they did conversation and the what they are conversation. [1:47] Jay Smooth: The what they are conversation is a rhetorical Bermuda Triangle where everything drowns in a sea of empty posturing until somebody just blames it all on hip-hop and we forget the whole thing ever happens. [1:47] Jay Smooth: I don't care what you are I care about what you did.

Original transcript

[0:05] race the final frontier no matter what [0:07] channel you watch no matter what feed [0:09] you aggregate it seems like everybody [0:11] everywhere is talking about race right [0:12] now and when everybody everywhere is [0:14] talking about race that means sooner or [0:16] later you're going to have to tell [0:17] somebody that they said something that [0:18] sounded racist so you need to be ready [0:20] and have a plan in place for how to [0:22] approach the inevitable that sounded [0:24] racist conversation and I'm going to [0:26] tell you how to do that the most [0:28] important thing that you've got to do is [0:30] remember the difference between the what [0:32] they did conversation and the what they [0:34] are conversation those are two totally [0:37] different conversations and you need to [0:38] make sure that you pick the right one [0:40] the what they did conversation focuses [0:42] strictly on the person's words and [0:44] actions and explaining why what they did [0:46] and what they said was unacceptable this [0:48] is also known as the that thing you said [0:50] was racist conversation and that's the [0:52] conversation that you want to have the [0:54] what they are conversation on the other [0:56] hand takes things one step further and [0:58] uses what they did and what they said to [1:00] draw conclusions about what kind of [1:02] person they are this is also known as [1:04] the I think you are a racist [1:06] conversation this is the conversation [1:08] you don't want to have because that [1:09] conversation takes us away from the [1:11] facts of what they did in the [1:12] speculation about their motives and [1:14] intentions and those are things you can [1:15] only guess at you can't ever prove and [1:17] that makes it way too easy for them to [1:19] derail your whole argument and that is [1:21] the part that's crucial to understand [1:23] when you say I think he's a racist [1:25] that's not a bad move because you might [1:26] be wrong that's a bad move because you [1:28] might be right because if that dude [1:30] really is racist you want to make sure [1:31] you hold him accountable and don't let [1:33] him off easy and even though intuitively [1:35] it feels like the hardest way to hit him [1:37] is just run up on him and say I think [1:38] your ass is racist when you handle it [1:40] that way you're actually letting him off [1:42] easy because you're setting up a [1:43] conversation is way too simple for him [1:45] to derail and duck out of just think [1:47] about how this plays out every time a [1:49] politician or a celebrity gets caught [1:50] out there it always starts out as of [1:52] what they did conversation but as soon [1:54] as the celebrity and their Defenders get [1:55] on camera they start doing Judo flips [1:57] and switching it into what they are [2:00] ation I have known this person for years [2:02] and I know for a fact that they are not [2:03] a racist and how dare you claim to know [2:05] what's inside their soul just because [2:07] they made one little joke about [2:08] watermelon tap dancing and going back to [2:10] Africa and then you try and explain that [2:12] we don't need to see inside their soul [2:14] to know that they shouldn't have said [2:15] all out about the watermelon and you try [2:16] to focus on the facts of the situation [2:18] but by then it's too late because the [2:20] what they are conversation is a [2:21] rhetorical Bermuda Triangle where [2:23] everything drowns in a sea of empty [2:24] posturing until somebody just blames it [2:26] all on hip-hop and we forget the whole [2:28] thing ever happens don't let this [2:29] happened to you when somebody picks my [2:31] pocket I'm not going to be chasing him [2:33] down so I can figure out whether he [2:34] feels like he's a thief deep down in his [2:36] heart I'm going to be chasing him down [2:38] so I can get my wallet back I don't care [2:40] what he is but I need to hold him [2:42] accountable for what he did and that's [2:43] how we need to approach these [2:45] conversations about race treat them like [2:47] they took your wallet and focus on the [2:49] part that matters holding each person [2:51] accountable for the impact of their [2:53] words and actions I don't care what you [2:55] are I care about what you [2:57] [Music] [2:58] did