The problem with Black Lives Matter

[metalhead]

Thanks for providing these. The first study is definitely troubling. I did find a more recent study which showed much more promising results. I couldn't find the methodology for that study, so I'm not sure what explains the discrepancy. It could be perhaps that they picked particularly unique black names. It could be more a function of seeing an unfamiliar name rather than seeing a black name. I wonder if foreigners with similarly unfamiliar names would have seen the same results.

Ditto for the 2nd and 4th studies. They definitely seem to reflect at least some level of prejudice towards black people. However, I would not consider these examples of institutional racism. There are no institutional policies behind these results. It's all the private feelings of private individuals. It's definitely worth looking into why people seem to hold more negative attitudes towards black people, but I don't see what we can do at the institutional level to alleviate these things.

The study you are citing is deeply flawed. The surnames they chose as the "black" names were Washington and Jefferson, and they used the first names Ryan and Chloe to test for bias. If you aren't aware that Jefferson and Washington are overwhelmingly African-American surnames - something I don't expect most people are aware of - one would likely not assume that "Chloe Washington" is African-American. The 2004 study used more stereotypical "black" names. And the ones I've cited are FAR from the only studies on the issue. There is a large, large amount of academic literature on the topic which overwhelmingly proves the bias.

This is why it's "institutional." Even presented with direct evidence proving that racial prejudice provides poorer outcomes for black people literally everywhere in society, your response is, "well that's just how people feel, it sucks but what can you do?" There are a lot of things you can do. One of the things that we have tried to do - Affirmative Action in college admissions - has been consistently been made out to be a boogeyman by the right. Other things we have tried to do - the voting rights act, the civil rights act, the fair housing act, prohibitions on redlining - see at best spotty and often non-existent enforcement.

In other words, our institutions actively work against policy and enforcement that would mitigate the problems. One of our political parties consistently uses any attempt to mitigate these problems as a political cudgel to play on these very same prejudices for political gain. Don't for a second think "there is nothing you can do" is a reasonable response, because it is total BS. There are plenty of things that can be done. People just don't want to actually do them.

So basically I should shut up? The only people afraid of discussion are those who aren't confident in their own position.

This is rich, you're the one telling people to shut up.

How am I ever supposed to recognize this if I get told to shut up whenever I try to talk about it?

Come on now, am I telling you to shut up? I believe I'm being respectful and trying to lay out an actual, fact-based case for my position.

My point is simply that if you don't want policy enacted that can help mitigate the effects of racial prejudice, just say that. But it's not a valid argument to say either that the problem doesn't exist, or that we can't do anything about it, because those are both blatantly false. That's all I meant. You're free to keep saying either thing, of course, but don't be surprised if the response is dismissal and mockery.

 

[civver_764]

The study you are citing is deeply flawed. The surnames they chose as the "black" names were Washington and Jefferson, and they used the first names Ryan and Chloe to test for bias. If you aren't aware that Jefferson and Washington are overwhelmingly African-American surnames - something I don't expect most people are aware of - one would likely not assume that "Chloe Washington" is African-American. The 2004 study used more stereotypical "black" names. And the ones I've cited are FAR from the only studies on the issue. There is a large, large amount of academic literature on the topic which overwhelmingly proves the bias.

This is why it's "institutional." Even presented with direct evidence proving that racial prejudice provides poorer outcomes for black people literally everywhere in society, your response is, "well that's just how people feel, it sucks but what can you do?" There are a lot of things you can do. One of the things that we have tried to do - Affirmative Action in college admissions - has been consistently been made out to be a boogeyman by the right. Other things we have tried to do - the voting rights act, the civil rights act, the fair housing act, prohibitions on redlining - see at best spotty and often non-existent enforcement.

In other words, our institutions actively work against policy and enforcement that would mitigate the problems. One of our political parties consistently uses any attempt to mitigate these problems as a political cudgel to play on these very same prejudices for political gain. Don't for a second think "there is nothing you can do" is a reasonable response, because it is total BS. There are plenty of things that can be done. People just don't want to actually do them.

See, the problem with that is you actually are creating institutional racism with these policies. When companies are forced to hire a certain percentage of a group, many times they end up hiring someone under qualified just avoid government sanctions. Not to mention, this doesn't do anything to change the private feelings of these individuals. If you force a racist to hire a black person, that might make them even more racist. I don't think that forcing the racism out of people is going to work.

Then there's this fundamental fallacy -- if society is made up of racists, how can you trust these racists to enforce these laws effectively? You even acknowledge this problem in your post.

Plus for things like loans, that sort of thing is really hard to enforce. For example, how do you know if they denied the loan because of race or because of credit history?

 

[Borachio]

I think it would be easy enough to allow for credit history in a sufficiently large population sample.

If you simply compare those with similar credit history and see who's getting the more loans, whites or blacks, there you'll have it.

It's not rocket science.

Even I could do it.

 

[metalhead]

See, the problem with that is you actually are creating institutional racism with these policies. When companies are forced to hire a certain percentage of a group, many times they end up hiring someone under qualified just avoid government sanctions. Not to mention, this doesn't do anything to change the private feelings of these individuals. If you force a racist to hire a black person, that might make them even more racist. I don't think that forcing the racism out of people is going to work.

You're strawmanning. That you came up with one possible policy and identified a flaw in it doesn't mean you can't come up with other, more workable policies in the same area or in other areas.

The goal is not to change people's feelings. That would be a silly and rather unrealistic goal. I think if society was overtly trying to correct for racial bias it may contribute to a lessening of bias over a long period of time, but that's a side effect, not worth considering either way.

Then there's this fundamental fallacy -- if society is made up of racists, how can you trust these racists to enforce these laws effectively? You even acknowledge this problem in your post.

Plus for things like loans, that sort of thing is really hard to enforce. For example, how do you know if they denied the loan because of race or because of credit history?

Do what Borachio says. This one is rather easy to take out of the hands of people entirely, and with the magic of computers, compliance would not be particularly burdensome. Does a bank's lending numbers show they aren't discriminating? Then they get a gold star. If they are discriminating they get a heavy fine. Require reports from every large lender, run them through a computer, and then publish the results. Simple, effective, and will absolutely fix the problem. Banks don't want to be known as being racially discriminatory.

People aren't slaves to their thoughts and impulses. Just because implicit bias is a thing doesn't mean it can't be overcome if people are made aware of it. You're making an awful lot of rather thin excuses for why we can't do anything, rather than consider it from the angle of what is possible and, more importantly, from the angle that it's a known problem and we're the United States of America and should be able to come up with solutions. Not just throw up our hands. That's not what Americans do, is it? Just give up because something seems hard?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So I tend to hear that blacks massacre blacks in Africa quite a lot. Is this also a racism?
Wouldnt be then more accurate to operate with the premise that most people arent in fact inherently racist but rather suffer from different forms of prejudice and fear of unknown?
Unfortunately I suspect there may be good number of sjws and others profiteering from pushing the racist narrative.

 

[metalhead]

Is there really a difference between "prejudice" and "racism" if the prejudice is based on race?

 

[Senethro]

"What if racism isn't real?" - Cutting edge thought itt.

Intellectual conservatism is dead and modern conservative ideology has articulated no new ideas in at least a couple of decades. All it can do is respond to progressives, with the spectrum of reactions ranging from sulky denials to angry obstructionism.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Is there really a difference between "prejudice" and "racism" if the prejudice is based on race?

What race? There is no other race beside human race. The others are faulty ideological constructs. To keep using them is to promote nonsense.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

"What if racism isn't real?" - Cutting edge thought itt.

Intellectual conservatism is dead and modern conservative ideology has articulated no new ideas in at least a couple of decades. All it can do is respond to progressives, with the spectrum of reactions ranging from sulky denials to angry obstructionism.

Yep racism is stupid nonsense. Sorry to break your buble...

 

[Senethro]

Racism is stupid nonsense but it causes harm. So its more productive to tell people to knock it off and to remedy the harm, rather than to complain that anti-racists are buying into a racist idea of race.

 

[Akka]

"Treating people according to their race is stupid and harmful ! And to fix it, we're going to treat people according to their race !"

Never ceases to amaze me.

 

[metalhead]

What race? There is no other race beside human race. The others are faulty ideological constructs. To keep using them is to promote nonsense.

I agree that the concept of "race" is bogus and arbitrary.

However, this arbitrary construct has a huge impact on how people are treated by society. So the concept of "race" itself has a lot of meaning even if its origins are capricious and arbitrary.

 

[Senethro]

"Treating people according to their race is stupid and harmful ! And to fix it, we're going to treat people according to their race !"

Never ceases to amaze me.

Like I said, complain to the racists please. They're the ones at fault.

Also under your belief system what harm reduction methods are permissible and what will will get your old grumpy man act?

 

[metalhead]

Don't bother. His childish reasoning shows no attempt at understanding the issue.

 

[Lexicus]

"Treating people according to their race is stupid and harmful ! And to fix it, we're going to treat people according to their race !"

Never ceases to amaze me.

Your idea is literally "let's pretend racism doesn't exist, then it will go away."

We've tried that in the US, and it doesn't work.

EDIT: Actually, that got me to thinking, me saying "it doesn't work" only makes sense if I assume you actually see racism as a problem that requires solving. You've never given any evidence of that.

 

[Narz]

I don't get it.

All these people killing each other.

If they don't like each other, why don't they just steer well clear?

With that attitude the United States wouldn't exist nor would most of us. Whether that's a good thing or not is another question.

 

[Berzerker]

humans are a species with racial subgroups

 

[Lexicus]

humans are a species with racial subgroups

No they aren't.

 

[Berzerker]

we're not a species or racial subgroups dont exist?

 

[Lexicus]

we're not a species or racial subgroups dont exist?

Racial subgroups don't exist.