Criticism of Josh Gordon and race relations

[Sommerswerd]

OK, getting circular ... moving on... So that brings me back to my original question:

You feel that my parents generation can blame societal/institutional bias, racism etc for their poor economic status, but when it comes to my generation... its our own fault... Is that a fair assesment of your point?

 

[Archbob]

OK, getting circular ... moving on... So that brings me back to my original question:

You feel that my parents generation can blame societal/institutional bias, racism etc for their poor economic status, but when it comes to my generation... its our own fault... Is that a fair assesment of your point?

Yes, generally. Your generation doesn't have to deal with sitting in the back of the Bus, the way perhaps your parents and grandparents did.


Also with admissions as I've mentioned before when a school or school system outlawed racial preferences when determining admissions(such as prop 209 at UC schools) prestigious schools like UCLA and UC-Berekely as well as U-Mich Ann Arbor all had a plummet in black enrollment. And now groups are fighting to repeal prop 209 for the purpose of basically getting more black kids into these prestigious state schools. Note that other racial group didn't really suffer(and some went up) since prop 209 banned racial preferences from admissions. You can't look at stuff like that and say that affirmative action does the same thing for all racial group.

Prop 209 did not ban using extra-curriculars or varsity sports as a measuring stick, only racial preferences so your theory of "played varsity sports" or is "better-rounded" does not apply here.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5563891

 

[Traitorfish]

No, I'm saying it should change to looking at themselves as much as blaming everyone else.

Black activists talk about issues within the black community all the time. They're not ignoring issues of culture and aspiration and expectation, you're just not listening to them.

Honestly, I'm not remotely convinced that conservatives actually advocate the sort of self-examination they claim. Self-examination is a step towards self-empowerment, and conservatives are absolutely not interested in empowering working class black communities. They just want black people to tip their hats and say "yes, sir, thank you, sir" more often. It's deference they want, not reflection.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Also with admissions as I've mentioned before when a school or school system outlawed racial preferences when determining admissions(such as prop 209 at UC schools) prestigious schools like UCLA and UC-Berekely as well as U-Mich Ann Arbor all had a plummet in black enrollment.

I am going to engage in some speculation here based on my experience working in admissions. If we drop affirmative action and now we have the same scenario I described previously, three borderline applicants, but you only have room to accept 2 of them, but now there is no +1 for minority status, and lets assume the impossible hypothetical that their applications are identical for everything except their names...Remember, there is no +1 for minorities.

1. Emily Wu
2. Christopher Hammond III
3. Shawneequa Jenkins

Who would you bet your money on getting admitted? Lets assume that, here, as in my admissions office, of about 50 people, I am the only Black person working in the building. Again, who is getting admitted?

You can't look at stuff like that and say that affirmative action does the same thing for all racial group.

I did not say that. I explained to you how race is applied, I said nothing about how the equal application of the race-based criteria impacts racial percentages of admission.

You are so focused on talking about results that you can't see that you are misinterpreting the process. It may be true (again, just accepting your premises here) that the results of affirmative action benefit Blacks more than Asians, but that does not mean that affirmative action is applied differently to Asians. Another possibility, (I am speculating here) and by your own premises (which I am just accepting), it is quite possible that a University dropping affirmative action (and simply lowering their minimum test scores to make up the difference in the admittance pool) will result in more Asians being admitted and less Blacks because of Asians focus on getting higher average SAT scores. So for example, in a situation with two borderline candidates, we no longer give a +1 for minority status, but instead we just admit the one with the higher SAT score, even if it's just one point higher. Can you see how, according to your premise, that this easily explains the less Blacks/more Asians trend? If you don't see it I will explain... With affirmative action both the Black student and the Asian student get a +1 and you will get some Black and some Asian students admitted. Drop affirmative action and instead adopt a "test-score-based affirmative action" system that just accepts the higher of two "low" test scores and the Asian student always wins because they focus on getting higher average test scores. Make sense?

And I am not "looking at stuff." You are "looking at stuff" and basing your opinion on that "stuff." I am basing my opinion on my real-world first hand experience working and volunteering for the admissions departments of 2 different major Universities. That is another reason our conclusions are different. Mine is based on experience in the field. Yours is based on "stuff you looked at."

Prop 209 did not ban using extra-curriculars or varsity sports as a measuring stick, only racial preferences so your theory of "played varsity sports" or is "better-rounded" does not apply here.

That is not relevant. I mentioned the additional factors to you to illustrate to you that Universities don't rely primarily on test scores. I know you wish they did. I can see that you have an emotional commitment to that I idea. But its still false.

Also, this is not a "theory." I am giving you the benefit of the actual analysis the University has tasked me to perform in evaluating the applicants I actually interview. You and I are not on equal footing here, in the sense that I am talking about what I know actually happens from actual experience as person who is an actual part of the real admissions process. You have (non-scientific) "theories." I have facts based on real world experience. You are describing how you THINK it is. I am explaining how it actually works.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes, generally. Your generation doesn't have to deal with sitting in the back of the Bus, the way perhaps your parents and grandparents did.

This is actually what I want to talk about. Although my parents are deceased, my parents generation is still very much alive and they are part of "the Blacks" that you referred to. So although you are willing to acknowledge the institutionalized obstacles that disadvantaged them, you are unwilling to recognize that fact creating any problems in their ability to give equal/adequate opportunities to their children? You are unwilling to recognize any damage that their disadvantaged experience does to the overall attitude and culture of Blacks as a whole? They are still alive remember...

So to illustrate... Imagine a relay race where my Dad runs lead, then passes the baton to me, and I pass it to my son who passes it to my grandson. You acknowledge that my Dad was required to hop (potato sack-race style) for his leg of the race, causing him to understandably fall behind. Now he passes me the baton and he, understandably tells me "Hop son! Hop as fast as you can!" He even hops in place to show me how to do it. He does this because that is all he knows, that is all he can teach me. So now I am supposed to know how to run? and be able to "catch-up" because now I'm "allowed" to run? No. Unless I am especially fast, I can never catch up in my leg of the race. Maybe I can make progress that my son can build on, if-and-only-if I am both able to quickly learn how to run with no parental guidance and I am actually faster than the other runners.

Another question... Ignoring the above illustration and instead (again) accepting your premise... Lets assume that you are correct and my generation "has no excuse."

Then why, in your opinion, are Blacks still economically behind? I get that you think it is poor ethics/values/cultural norms, but that is just the middleman. Why do you think Blacks have poor ethics/values/cultural norms? What causes them to have these poor ethics/values/cultural norms?

 

[Hygro]

 

[Farm Boy]

Why Sommerswerd? Because they're trailer trash and hicks, only moreso since they unavoidably wear the flags of it as their skin?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why Sommerswerd? Because they're trailer trash and hicks, only moreso since they unavoidably wear the flags of it as their skin?

I'm sorry I missed this somehow. I was checking this thread for a quote and I noticed this question. I don't understand your question. Is it rhetorical? If you can explain it a little more I will do my best to answer.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you grow in a relatively closed circuit environment with next to zero ethnic variety, the problems that American blacks generationally slam into don't go away. They're there. A permanent visual identity chock full of cultural and socioeconomic realities that extends through the entire country is significantly more pernicious though. No?

 

[Sommerswerd]

If you mean that the two-front effect of stereotypes is 1.the people outside the group believe them and consequently lock their minds into viewing the target group in the stereotyped way, which in turn makes it impossible for the group to create any real change in how they are percieved and 2. the people inside the stereotyped group begin to buy-in to the inescapable stereotype as being a true representation of their identity, which in turn creates a vicious cycle of them imitating, thus justifying and ultimately perpetuating the stereotype... Then yes I agree.

I also agree that this effect is worse than being trapped into racially, ethinically, culturally homogenous ghettos, trailer parks etc... because while the latter compounds already existing problems by denying access to dynamic and therefore potentially transformative ideas... The former is oftentimes the source of the damaging ideas and perceptions in the first place. Homogenous neighborhoods have a tendancy to entrench, perpetuate and stagnate everything, especially ideas and ideologies, however if the homogenous neighborhood already has some virtuous economic traits, for example, there is some light at the end of the tunnel, no?

And in case it was not clear already, in my view this principle can and does currently cross racial and ethnic lines... why wouldn't it? More specifically, I wouldn't want to grow up in a trailer park very much either. I'm sure someone would try to make a case that it would somehow be "better" than an urban ghetto, but that person isn't me... I've been there... they suck too... equally? Who knows? Who cares? When we're at the point that we're comparing shite, what is the point of arguing about the colour of the corn kernels in it?

 

[Farm Boy]

There's a lot of answers in poo. It's one of the most educational things to examine. But yes, it's easy to get stuck. Sometimes you tug and tug and you just sink deeper.

 

[Sommerswerd]

There's a lot of answers in poo. It's one of the most educational things to examine. But yes, it's easy to get stuck. Sometimes you tug and tug and you just sink deeper.

Well yes that is an excellent point (as usual). If I were a biologist, or a farmer for example, the consistency, colour and composition of my animal's droppings would provide excellent data about their health, diet and all kinds of things I'm sure I can't even imagine (because I'm not a farmer).

So I guess in a figurative sense, if you examine the behavioral, economic and educational gaps, deficiencies, deviations of any given impoverished neighborhood, you might be able to determine the nature and possibly the source of the problem. And finding the source of a problem is certainly a good way to go about figuring out how to fix it.

But I think that is a little different from my use of the "poo" analogy right? I guess if we wanted to stick with the farming analogy (again I'm not a farmer) maybe the poo-differentiation that I was suggesting was trivial, could be likened to trying to compare the mixed mashed poo-infused mud that is on the floor of the pig pen to the mixed mashed poo-infused mud that is on the floor of the cattle corral... and then arguing over which is "better" in terms of the overall heath of the animals wading, walking, and wallowing through it... trying to prove that if we move the cows to the pig pen or vice-versa, they would be better off because of the relative "quality of the mud."

 

[Farm Boy]

Dosages make poisons. Dosages make fertilizers. It's not so much "quality" as it is "in what ways is this the same, and in what ways is it different?" Right? There is generational discrimination, and disadvantage, and lingering poverty in a lot of different areas affecting a lot of different people. If we can determine what is or has been effective at breaking the cycle of poor white trash, and what the costs were, then so long as we have some idea of the overlap the disadvantages inherent in being poor white trash and being urban ghetto poor then we have some idea as to the costs and methods that may start fixing the other. Or vice versa. If we start applying methods and start getting different results in efficacy, then we start being able to quantify and qualify where what and how much the differences actually are. I use homogenous white trash as an example, not because it introduces no new variables but because it mostly eliminates one.

This could all just be crap of the not useful variety. Not sure.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Dosages make poisons. Dosages make fertilizers. It's not so much "quality" as it is "in what ways is this the same, and in what ways is it different?" Right?

I hope you know I agree when I spend so much time in the other thread hammering away relentlessly at the point that all stereotypes are not created equally (pardon the pun). As you so eloquently put it, some can be poison and some can be fertilizer... it largely depends on the circumstances. To extend the point further, not everything that stinks is bad... not everything that is offensive is devoid of useful purpose.

I get your point about removing the racial variable, but if you would indulge me... How do you feel about racial/ethnic diversity as a virtuous goal in-and-of-itself? Do you embrace it? Reject it outright? Feel some trepidation/suspicion? I ask because I have observed this perspective can greatly impact views on appropriate solutions.

 

[Farm Boy]

I've been trying to avoid that thread. It was already long when I noticed it, and I hate jumping in when I haven't set aside the hour or two it would probably take me to chew on everything in it already. And that would probably be rushing it.

Diversity itself is fun. Embracing multiple perspectives, new and old, seems to be in the list of fundamental strengths of our society when we manage to pull it off, isn't it? I'm not sure what to take away from "Racial/ethnic diversity as a virtuous goal in-and-of-itself" though. In a free and open society with largely broken social and legal barriers and adequate transportation, doesn't racial and ethnic diversity tend to break down without the import of pure samples from outside? Is there a point where maintaining racial and ethnic diversity as a self standing end goal morphs into maintaining racial and ethnic purity? This isn't the same question as maintaining cultural diversity.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Dosages make poisons. Dosages make fertilizers. It's not so much "quality" as it is "in what ways is this the same, and in what ways is it different?" Right? There is generational discrimination, and disadvantage, and lingering poverty in a lot of different areas affecting a lot of different people. If we can determine what is or has been effective at breaking the cycle of poor white trash, and what the costs were, then so long as we have some idea of the overlap the disadvantages inherent in being poor white trash and being urban ghetto poor then we have some idea as to the costs and methods that may start fixing the other. Or vice versa. If we start applying methods and start getting different results in efficacy, then we start being able to quantify and qualify where what and how much the differences actually are. I use homogenous white trash as an example, not because it introduces no new variables but because it mostly eliminates one.

This could all just be crap of the not useful variety. Not sure.

I think it is a useful demonstration in that it does eliminate one, and in eliminating that one it may well indicate that the one is critical.

The target of transition is "the great white suburbs of soccer moms and minivans". Who is better able to see themselves there, the poor white trash from the trailer park, or the poor black kid from the urban ghetto? Who can still associate with their origins if they do make that transition and who has to completely abandon all that they knew? Who will be congratulated for their 'climb against the odds' and who will be branded as 'uppity'?

Yes, the core difference between escaping from the white trash trailer park and the black urban ghetto is in fact race. The demonstration is useful in identifying the problem, though not a solution.

 

[Archbob]

I get your point about removing the racial variable, but if you would indulge me... How do you feel about racial/ethnic diversity as a virtuous goal in-and-of-itself? Do you embrace it? Reject it outright? Feel some trepidation/suspicion? I ask because I have observed this perspective can greatly impact views on appropriate solutions.

It really depends. On an academic setting, there's research that shows that it actually makes no difference in terms of achievements for student whether they are in an ethnically diverse setting or not. The argument you could make is to get more viewpoints but I think its a goal mainly because it feels somewhat unfair that certain people are not represented as much. We want to maintain the view that everyone is equal and we go to great lengths to tilt the results in that favor. Objectively, I'm not sure if I agree with it or not. There's very little concrete evidence that is helps progress or advancement.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It really depends. On an academic setting, there's research that shows that it actually makes no difference in terms of achievements for student whether they are in an ethnically diverse setting or not. The argument you could make is to get more viewpoints but I think its a goal mainly because it feels somewhat unfair that certain people are not represented as much. We want to maintain the view that everyone is equal and we go to great lengths to tilt the results in that favor. Objectively, I'm not sure if I agree with it or not. There's very little concrete evidence that is helps progress or advancement.

This depends on the academic setting.

In medical school, I can't see how ethnic diversity would contribute anything to the results. Ditto for any other vocational training program.

However, if the field of study is intended to produce an outcome in any way related to a 'well rounded view' a diversity in the environment is inherently valuable. An economist who studies economics in an environment exclusively populated with upper middle class suburbanites is not going to get an education that will enable them to examine urban conditions and problems effectively.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think it is a useful demonstration in that it does eliminate one, and in eliminating that one it may well indicate that the one is critical.

The target of transition is "the great white suburbs of soccer moms and minivans". Who is better able to see themselves there, the poor white trash from the trailer park, or the poor black kid from the urban ghetto? Who can still associate with their origins if they do make that transition and who has to completely abandon all that they knew? Who will be congratulated for their 'climb against the odds' and who will be branded as 'uppity'?

Yes, the core difference between escaping from the white trash trailer park and the black urban ghetto is in fact race. The demonstration is useful in identifying the problem, though not a solution.

I think it might identify a problem. I think you're also underestimating the number of rural poor, the barriers to "making it" and the level of culture shock/abandoning all they know. Speech patterns are a form of social brand. If you're hot young and female that backwoods drawl is fetching. If you have a history of poor dental health, it's really not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think it might identify a problem. I think you're also underestimating the number of rural poor, the barriers to "making it" and the level of culture shock/abandoning all they know. Speech patterns are a form of social brand. If you're hot young and female that backwoods drawl is fetching. If you have a history of poor dental health, it's really not.

I may be underestimating the necessity to "abandon all they know" due to personal experience. I can move freely in the 'white trash trailer park' environment. I do it all the time. I can then, with a simple change of clothes, attend a meeting of the city council and accompany the local power clique when they adjourn to their after the meeting meeting to discuss the state of affairs over coffee and drinks at the local watering hole. I do that all the time too, and they are only slightly guarded in my presence.

In white dominated environments, a white chameleon is much harder to spot than a black one.