Why are antiracists so... racist?

[Senethro]

Michty me if it had been known that SJWism could have turned so many people into reactionary socialists critiquing their society by class then it should have been tried long ago.

 

[Ryika]

Have socialists in your mind monopolized class struggle in the same way that feminists have monopolized women's rights, or why are you saying that?

 

[Senethro]

I already answered the second question in a previous post.

I notice you didn't comment on how your own example blew up in your face. But hey, chop chop chop, right ?

The problem between fanatics and non-fanatics is rarely about communication, and usually about the fanatics' lack of critical thinking.

I reciprocate. If you don't bother to reply to most of my post, why should I respond to all of yours?

Poverty in white americans is caused by X, poverty in black americans is caused by X + racism. So it looks like you want to ignore racism in favour of only solving X (which is most certainly worthy of being solved too) while failing to acknowledge that racism doesn't get solved by being ignored.

Flooding and abnormal water levels really could be different things.

And you didn't answer the question. You mumbled something about talking and engaging the racists but gave no examples. Its usually at this point that the thread gets closed and then we have to run around again in a few months. I've tried asking for past examples of color blind principle aligned engagement with racists to try to get a better idea of what you're talking about to circumvent the apparent communication problem, but now you're just referring me to your non-answer.

 

[Disgustipated]

For achievement of a reasonable degree of equality.

We've had a black American President, the highest office in the land. I'd call that achievement. Don't tell me intelligent black men can't make it in this world. They can.

Of course we need to reform our education system, but there's only so much that can be done. At some point individual responsibility comes into play, and people have to take matters of their education into their own hands (hint: there are free sites to learn things on the internet).

 

[inthesomeday]

@Akka

We're on the same side here, really. I agree that laws change nothing and only vast economic upheaval will change the oppression of modern society.

There's just this frustrating way that you (and other people, unfair to single you out) worry about these little snippets of philosophy that won't ultimately have any relevance to action or to change. Semantics aside spending time or energy wondering if white people feel sad, or if Nazis speech is sad, is ultimately a waste of valuable resources in the real fights.

 

[Akka]

I reciprocate. If you don't bother to reply to most of my post, why should I respond to all of yours?

I do answer to the core point instead of answering each line - aren't you the same guy who complained about slicing posts in lots of parts ? If that's what you like...

Poverty in white americans is caused by X, poverty in black americans is caused by X + racism. So it looks like you want to ignore racism in favour of only solving X (which is most certainly worthy of being solved too) while failing to acknowledge that racism doesn't get solved by being ignored.

No, I'm in favour of solving poverty. So wether it's X or X + racism, the problem is still solved.
Racism becomes solved when people change their outlook. You make people change their outlook by winning them over to your side. You don't win people to your side by being a PITA and shaming them and lording over them, and making laws that are violating the core principles you claim to defend.

Flooding and abnormal water levels really could be different things.

More grasping at straws and purposedly missing the point, that'll make people willing to answer your posts.

And you didn't answer the question. You mumbled something about talking and engaging the racists but gave no examples. Its usually at this point that the thread gets closed and then we have to run around again in a few months. I've tried asking for past examples of color blind principle aligned engagement with racists to try to get a better idea of what you're talking about to circumvent the apparent communication problem, but now you're just referring me to your non-answer.

It seems you just don't get what is the real underlying of colourblindness.
The core concept is to integrate in your laws that skin colour is irrelevant, and as such should be considered as, basically, nonexistent - somewhat of a private matter, like religion or politics (even if the anglosphere seems to have some trouble with the whole "private life" part of these aspects, but whatever). It's not a weapon to fight racist with, it's draining the ground on which racism thrive, not by engaging race but by making it obsolete by treating people as individuals and not part of a subgroup. It's winning people over by showing them : "your race doesn't matter, the law will treat you the same". It isn't a magical wand that will fix racism overnight, but it's a way to put in the mind of people "yeah, right, fair is fair". It helps changing their outlook.

 

[inthesomeday]

Colorblind policies cannot work in a system that is essentially based on race.

 

[Akka]

There's just this frustrating way that you (and other people, unfair to single you out) worry about these little snippets of philosophy that won't ultimately have any relevance to action or to change. Semantics aside spending time or energy wondering if white people feel sad, or if Nazis speech is sad, is ultimately a waste of valuable resources in the real fights.

And that's just a very shallow understanding of the world, and probably a reason why you seem to have trouble grasping the importance of concepts and principles.

Where do you think the big changes in society come ? From a few fringe hooligans acting tough ? Do you even ponder what are the roots of our entire civilization ? Where the very ideas Human Rights come ?
Because all this DO comes from philosophy, from a bunch of people who thought about concepts and principles and explained them and made others think "hey, THIS is how the world should work". I know the USA tends to have some sort of anti-intellectual slant, looking down on "these eggheads in their ivory tower, while we DO get on with the real work here !", but it's just reverse snobbishness.
Principles and philosophy are what societies are built upon. The Far-East is permeated by confucian values, the West is permeated by Ancient Greece and the Enlightment values. That these ideas are still the driving force of our social mores hundred of years later should give you an idea just how important they are.

Unless you're a charismatic leader, you don't unite people unless you have an idea that speaks to them and gather their support. And when you have such ideas, that's when society moves. Don't underestimate the power of ideas.

Colorblind policies cannot work in a system that is essentially based on race.

Seems yet another dogma you repeat mechanically without thought nor reflexion, just because you heard someone else say it.

 

[inthesomeday]

I agree that ideas change the world but only when they are acted on. It's worthless to just have one and discard it with no attempt to utilize it or analyze it practically.

And just because you don't understand a simple logical statement doesn't mean it's mechanical dogma.

 

[Senethro]

I do answer to the core point instead of answering each line - aren't you the same guy who complained about slicing posts in lots of parts ? If that's what you like...

It was 3 lines and you edited out 2 of them just so you could answer the point you wanted.

No, I'm in favour of solving poverty. So wether it's X or X + racism, the problem is still solved.
Racism becomes solved when people change their outlook. You make people change their outlook by winning them over to your side. You don't win people to your side by being a PITA and shaming them and lording over them, and making laws that are violating the core principles you claim to defend.

You say this, but abrasiveness and contempt are practically your bywords in all your posts. Perhaps you are more like "SJWs" than you know?

It is not just and sometimes not practical to wait for everyone or even a majority of people to change their minds. In recent years in some places LGBT rights have been advanced ahead of public opinion and this is good because human rights should not be a matter of democracy. The state should sometimes act to shelter minorities.

More grasping at straws and purposedly missing the point, that'll make people willing to answer your posts.

No, really, this is called reaching a different conclusion due to having different sets of data and values. It happens.

It seems you just don't get what is the real underlying of colourblindness.
The core concept is to integrate in your laws that skin colour is irrelevant, and as such should be considered as, basically, nonexistent - somewhat of a private matter, like religion or politics (even if the anglosphere seems to have some trouble with the whole "private life" part of these aspects, but whatever). It's not a weapon to fight racist with, it's draining the ground on which racism thrive, not by engaging race but by making it obsolete by treating people as individuals and not part of a subgroup. It's winning people over by showing them : "your race doesn't matter, the law will treat you the same". It isn't a magical wand that will fix racism overnight, but it's a way to put in the mind of people "yeah, right, fair is fair". It helps changing their outlook.

I get your core concept, I just think it is too idealistic. Its the ideal state to arrive at, but it says nothing of how we get there.

I think Equality of Outcome is currently more important than Equality of Opportunity. EoOpportunity relies on people not being jerks and unfortunately we are not in short supply.

 

[inthesomeday]

If equality of opportunity was real then equality of outcome would occur naturally, by definition, or else would not because of some personal quality of the individual, in which case the opportunities were not truly equal. Equality of opportunity is a myth and only by enforcing equality in the means of living can you really call it equality.

 

[Cutlass]

If equality of opportunity was real then equality of outcome would occur naturally, by definition, or else would not because of some personal quality of the individual, in which case the opportunities were not truly equal. Equality of opportunity is a myth and only by enforcing equality in the means of living can you really call it equality.

This is not true. Equality of opportunity does not result in equality of outcomes. It just tries to cause equality of starting conditions.

 

[inthesomeday]

This is not true. Equality of opportunity does not result in equality of outcomes. It just tries to cause equality of starting conditions.

If starting conditions were the same they would by nature produce the same outcomes. Is the goal to reward individual skill? Because in a scenario of true equal opportunity I can promise the individual skill probably won't be that different. People with the same upbringing, the same education, and the same available positions and opportunities for learning will almost always do the same things because their culture and thus their values and thus their decision making is informed by the same sources.

If their personal abilities, like genetic dispositions towards certain tasks, are radically different, maybe they'll receive a different outcome. But is that a good way to run society, really? Meritocracy that punishes people for things, ultimately, out of their control?

 

[Mobfire]

If starting conditions were the same they would by nature produce the same outcomes. Is the goal to reward individual skill? Because in a scenario of true equal opportunity I can promise the individual skill probably won't be that different. People with the same upbringing, the same education, and the same available positions and opportunities for learning will almost always do the same things because their culture and thus their values and thus their decision making is informed by the same sources.

If their personal abilities, like genetic dispositions towards certain tasks, are radically different, maybe they'll receive a different outcome. But is that a good way to run society, really? Meritocracy that punishes people for things, ultimately, out of their control?

But you can't control people's upbringing, experiences, and exact environment. (Though you can control education, or at least make things reasonably balanced (unlike the US where it isn't really)). The best thing you can do is make sure that the law ensures that deliberate discrimination is illegal and that everyone has a chance to work their way up.
Genetic dispositions towards tasks isn't the only factor that impacts performance, it also comes down to choices. If 2 people were in a writing contest and one spent 10 hours writing and the other chooses to only spend 30 minutes (whether it be because they're lazy or they have different priorities) and the one who spent 10 hours won, you have a clear example of inequality of outcome despite both contestants having the same opportunity to win. When people say equality of opportunity, it doesn't mean forcing every single condition to be the same, just making sure that people have access to the same opportunities with a reasonable degree of accommodation.

 

[Ryika]

f starting conditions were the same they would by nature produce the same outcomes. Is the goal to reward individual skill? Because in a scenario of true equal opportunity I can promise the individual skill probably won't be that different. People with the same upbringing, the same education, and the same available positions and opportunities for learning will almost always do the same things because their culture and thus their values and thus their decision making is informed by the same sources.

Genetic differences exist, you can't just talk them away. Not entirely on the topic of race, but the difference in IQ distribution between men and women - women being more likely to be of average intelligence, men being more likely to be of low or high intelligence - is the best proof of that, and on its own already completely destroys the idea of equal outcome.

Because if starting positions are equal between the sexes, and people are valued by their performance, then the higher number of men in the "High IQ"-group will make more men end up in top positions (and at the bottom of the barrel, but nobody seems to ever care about that), even if we do our best to to push both genders into equal job fields.

If their personal abilities, like genetic dispositions towards certain tasks, are radically different, maybe they'll receive a different outcome. But is that a good way to run society, really? Meritocracy that punishes people for things, ultimately, out of their control?

Yeah, I think the word "punish" is a bit misplaced there. Nobody gets "punished", people get the jobs that suit their strengths, to the level that they're available. There aren't enough "top-level jobs" around for everybody, so how do you suggest we distribute jobs instead, if not by who's most suited for them? In reality, any system you can propose also "punishes" people for things out of their control, and also brings in the element of having people who are not as well-suited for a job as they could be do that job.

Because that's really the main benefit of a Meritocracy, you get as much efficiency as you can realistically get, because you have people do the jobs who know how to do them. That makes society as a whole incredibly efficient, and an incredibly efficient society is a society that is wealthy enough to afford measures to offer help people for people who have been born with natural disadvantages and disabilities in the first place.

So yeah, equal outcome is generally BS. I do think looking at equal outcome can sometimes be valuable to equalize a playing field that is clearly not equal, but even then it is still a tool that ignores most of the variables in favor of an extremely simplified, discriminatory system. The only merit that it has is that it offers an easy-to-understand, but flawed view of what is going on.

 

[inthesomeday]

Meritocracy is not equality, and meritocracy is the logical result of equal opportunity. That's all I'm saying. You can think whatever you want about how efficient meritocracy is but ultimately you can't pretend it's equal.

I value equality over efficiency in my societies, I think.

 

[Ryika]

What is this "equality" you're talking about then? The way it is usually seen is that there are two approaches to the idea of "equality".

One that is based on "Equality of Opportunity", in which everyone has a chance to succeed as much as their natural skills allow them to. (Mind you, I'm not saying the USA or any other Country currently has a perfect version of this, it's an ideal that has not, and maybe cannot be reached to its perfection)

And one that is based on "Equality of Outcome", that will discriminate against those who have a high skillset in favor of those who have a low skillset. People are prevented from thriving in favor of having everybody reach the same level.

Both versions have their up- and downsides, I do not think either version can claim the title of "equality" for itself.

 

[Akka]

You say this, but abrasiveness and contempt are practically your bywords in all your posts. Perhaps you are more like "SJWs" than you know?

I'm nowhere near hypocrital enough nor suffering from acute cognitive dissonance for that.
Though yeah, I fully admit I have a very real lack of patience with idiocy (which is sometimes unwarranted when I find things idiotic which, in the end, weren't actually stupid).

It is not just and sometimes not practical to wait for everyone or even a majority of people to change their minds. In recent years in some places LGBT rights have been advanced ahead of public opinion and this is good because human rights should not be a matter of democracy. The state should sometimes act to shelter minorities.

Racism is prejudice. Prejudice happens in the mind of people. Ergo, prejudice will only change when people change their mind. The point is to convince them to change their mind, or to set up the environment in such a way that their mind ends up changing on its own. That's just the limit of reality here, even if it's unfair.
The state can (and does) act to further these aims, but the points you seem unable to grasp despite multiple repetitions are :
- If the acts actually further the prejudice of people, then racism isn't going to disappear.
- If the acts violate the very principle they are built on, then they become meaningless and they lose their reason of existing.

I don't know what is difficult to understand, seems that it's just personal bias getting in the way.

No, really, this is called reaching a different conclusion due to having different sets of data and values. It happens.

No, this is just playing dumb and purposedly missing the point. And a waste of time.

I get your core concept, I just think it is too idealistic. Its the ideal state to arrive at, but it says nothing of how we get there.

It's less "idealistic" and more "principled". It's also, actually, quite practical : you don't convince someone of the value of an idea by not respecting it yourself.
It's both about moral legitimacy and ability to make people adhere to it. And it needs internal consistency and fairness - people must see the idea, and think "well, true, it looks sound", they must see the application of the idea and think "well, yeah, fair is fair".

I think Equality of Outcome is currently more important than Equality of Opportunity. EoOpportunity relies on people not being jerks and unfortunately we are not in short supply.

This is completely idiotic. Limiting inequalities is good to control the leverage people can use over others, but equality of opportunity is the important point, equality of outcome is just conceptually bonker as long as people are differents - it means selectively oppressing or promoting people in inverse relation to their abilities and skills. WTH with this logic ?

If their personal abilities, like genetic dispositions towards certain tasks, are radically different, maybe they'll receive a different outcome. But is that a good way to run society, really? Meritocracy that punishes people for things, ultimately, out of their control?

Isn't that what you propose ? "you did better, but you'll receive the same" sounds a lot like punishing someone for what he managed to do.
I'm, again, all for limiting the variance of outcome, so we don't end up with obscene situations like "this guy win in one year what would take a minimum wage worker the entire length of human history to get". But your authoritarian wet dream of controlling every aspect of life can stuff it.

 

[Lexicus]

I think Equality of Outcome is currently more important than Equality of Opportunity. EoOpportunity relies on people not being jerks and unfortunately we are not in short supply.

Equality of opportunity requires changes to society that would be completely intolerable to most of its proponents. Two major changes I can think of off the top of my head are that inheritance of property would need to be forbidden, and raising children would have to be taken out of the hands of parents and done communally.

Racism is prejudice.

Racism is a system of power fed by prejudice. It isn't identical to prejudice.

 

[luiz]

Why is equality even desirable? It's a ridiculous concept. Even if we took away children from their parents, as Lexicus suggests, it would still not be "equality of opportunity", because a children born with a crippling genetic condition will never have the same opportunity as a perfectly healthy one (without even getting into the debate of how much of intelligence and capacity is genetic).

So equality of opportunities is impossible and always will be, and equality of outcomes requires a draconian enforcement that would utterly destroy our economy and indeed society. And indeed it would be much worse than inequality. So what's the point? Who said absolute equality is some holy grail? God?

I agree with Akka, inequality should be limited, but we should not aim at equality.