Racism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colorblind policies are not racist and it is not a respectable position to claim they are racist. If you're getting "racist outcomes" (which sounds silly), a better avenue to explore is why, given a demonstrably fair selection process, outcomes remain unequal. You need to correct the source of that problem, not engage in a cycle of handouts and then look the other way at the underlying issues.

This is literally what we think we are doing, and we perceive you as looking the other way on the underlying issues.

Also, short people weren't legislated against (with maybe some exceptions for military service?). Women and ethnic minorities were. So comparisons are a bit of a stretch.
 
This is literally what we think we are doing, and we perceive you as looking the other way on the underlying issues.

Also, short people weren't legislated against (with maybe some exceptions for military service?). Women and ethnic minorities were. So comparisons are a bit of a stretch.

We're talking about present situation yes? Women and ethnic minorities are not legislated against, and in some instances women enjoy a significant advantage at present (sentencing gap/prosecution rate/family "courts" for example). The analogy holds.

Claiming you're addressing racism by engaging in racism is not coherent.
 
Well, it has been demonstrated a number of times that opposition to these kinds of policies correlates strongly with attitudes commonly labelled under the term "racial resentment" (oh the things white people will come up with to avoid saying "racism" because it makes other white people uncomfortable to hear that word).



Well it was, to give Hehehe his due, a well-crafted bit of racist trolling. It was a post on how "demographics" in Africa, Yemen are leading to crisis - basically setting up the point that the dumb Africans and Arabs (or specifically Yemenis I suppose) are going to breed themselves into starvation unless we "do something" like forced sterilization. That's the classic sort of one-two punch of nazism - first you set up the Malthusian crisis as the inevitable result of doing nothing, then it makes the horrific crimes you propose look like a pretty good option. It even sets up the dynamic where soldiering on through aversion to what you're doing becomes perceived as a kind of virtue.

It's interesting because I just (few weeks ago) read a very interesting essay on the intellectual origins of racism in the Enlightenment, and none other than Thomas Malthus played a starring role. Malthus' work was one of the essential steps in rendering man a mere beast.
Yeah, if I "liked" spots like that, it was definitely one of my scrolling mishaps. I usually catch them, but not always.
 
We're talking about present situation yes? Women and ethnic minorities are not legislated against, and in some instances women enjoy a significant advantage at present (sentencing gap/prosecution rate/family "courts" for example). The analogy holds.
It really doesn't. Short people haven't not been legislated against in the past and have not continually had worse outcomes since they were legislated against. There is no present that is shorn of the past.

Claiming you're addressing racism by engaging in racism is not coherent.

You can't free slaves without stealing property. You can't extend the franchise without diluting existing holders political power. Whatever you do, someone is going to get pissy.

The thing is that if you actually proposed colour blind solutions to wealth/social inequality then the likelihood is we'd all support them IN ADDITION to whatever we think will help women/minorities. It should really be the minds of the middle/conservatives that you're trying to change but for some reason you keep stating a position that somehow sees us as the real opposition.
 
James Damore did exactly that.

Ah okay, so now the true meaning of "color-/genderblind solutions" comes out. As we established all the way back on like page 3 it does indeed mean "ignore racial/gender disparities and hope this will fix everything". Glad it only took us seven pages to get that straight.
 
I would go further and say that non-colorblind policies are racist, in most cases.
May be with a few exceptions.

True, in most cases they are attempts to justify discrimination on arbitrarily selected inequality bounds. I don't want to say they're always racist, but more often than not if you're actively discriminating based on race it's racist :/.

It really doesn't. Short people haven't not been legislated against in the past and have not continually had worse outcomes since they were legislated against. There is no present that is shorn of the past.

Yet data past and present consistently demonstrates it's a relevant example equally if not more predictive of success today than being male/female, even if you control for the fact that women are shorter than men (short men have a significantly worse lot than average/tall, same is true for women).

You can't free slaves without stealing property. You can't extend the franchise without diluting existing holders political power. Whatever you do, someone is going to get pissy.

Not relevant to what you quoted.

The thing is that if you actually proposed colour blind solutions to wealth/social inequality then the likelihood is we'd all support them IN ADDITION to whatever we think will help women/minorities. It should really be the minds of the middle/conservatives that you're trying to change but for some reason you keep stating a position that somehow sees us as the real opposition.

People claim colorblind policies are racist. That *is* opposition. To reality.

Equality of outcome is a farce. If you go for equal opportunity, you're not going to get equal outcomes because people aren't equal. Divides happen on a wide range of factors, including factors more significant than race.
 
If you go for equal opportunity, you're not going to get equal outcomes because people aren't equal. Divides happen on a wide range of factors, including factors more significant than race.

So basically. You believe that race is a real dimension of difference among people and that's somehow...not racist?

People claim colorblind policies are racist. That *is* opposition. To reality.

To claim that policies which actually have a track record of successfully reducing racial disparities in income, education, and housing are "incoherent" and so cannot be allowed is opposition to reality, actually. It's practically the definition of opposition to reality. But no point in pursuing this line of argument until you answer the question above.

Equality of outcome is a farce.

Obviously, equality of opportunity without some degree of equality in outcome is a farce because today's outcomes are tomorrow's opportunities.
 
And here is the bit where we discover what colour blind policies really mean is doing less, not doing more, and not addressing any wealth inequality at all.. This whole pose of being less racist than the anti-racists is an attempt to create racial animosity using superficial "reasonableness". It is an appeal to whites that the situation is already just, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a malcontent, afflicted with the politics of envy, a welfare queen, whatever.
 
Ah okay, so now the true meaning of "color-/genderblind solutions" comes out. As we established all the way back on like page 3 it does indeed mean "ignore racial/gender disparities and hope this will fix everything". Glad it only took us seven pages to get that straight.
Interesting. You aren't aware that Damore suggested changing corporate structures and practices to stop them from favouring men?

As many people before have suggested, reducing the corporate culture of competition and short-termism and which results in hiring practices that favour pushy extroverts over more reflective introverts would almost certainly make business more profitable in the long term and would probably help recruit more women into positions of leadership. There's also considerations such as equalising paternity and maternity leave, so the decision on who drops out of work is no longer a non-choice.
 
You aren't aware that Damore suggested changing corporate structures and practices to stop them from favouring men?

I am aware that the suggestions he made would have only led to men being treated more favorably, and moreover treated people differently based on what the author explicitly constructed as gender differences. So actually I was being rather charitable when I equated your suggestion that we follow his suggestions with a suggestion that we do nothing, since I think following Damore's suggestions means the problem gets worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom