And Back to Racial Discrimination

[Ana the Ist]

I am not clear that such a thing could ever be substantiated. Maybe overlooked candidates believe it.

What do you think when you hear this: 'I was the best qualified but a [black/man/woman/younger/prettier/known-to the-panel*] person was given the post.'

I think - sour grapes.

* circle the one which applies

I agree. It can't be substantiated.

That's why we shouldn't just assume people are unconsciously racially discriminating.

 

[Whyayeman]

That's why we shouldn't just assume people are unconsciously racially discriminating.

This is an important point. We have an ongoing example of discriminatory language by members of - of all things - Yorkshire County Cricket Club. A player of Pakistani heritage but born in Yorkshire (a qualification for players at this prestigious and ancient club) has retired and accused the club of racially motivated language. This is almost certainly the use of 'Paki' in what the club dismissed as dressing room banter.

The standard response for 'banter' of this kind goes like this: 'Can't you take a joke?'

[Note that despite the 'banter' he represented the club (and was paid like the rest of the team); he was not discriminated against professionally. He has not suggested that it was more difficult for him to make the first eleven.]

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is an important point. We have an ongoing example of discriminatory language by members of - of all things - Yorkshire County Cricket Club. A player of Pakistani heritage but born in Yorkshire (a qualification for players at this prestigious and ancient club) has retired and accused the club of racially motivated language. This is almost certainly the use of 'Paki' in what the club dismissed as dressing room banter.

The standard response for 'banter' of this kind goes like this: 'Can't you take a joke?'

[Note that despite the 'banter' he represented the club (and was paid like the rest of the team); he was not discriminated against professionally. He has not suggested that it was more difficult for him to make the first eleven.]

I don't know the history of that term or how it was used. If it's an incident of racism or not I cannot say.

That's not what is happening here.

In the US racial discrimination is a crime. The necessary factor for determining guilt is evidence of intent. If a business doesn't have any latino workers....we can't just assume they are guilty....we have to show they never considered Latino applicants. If they haven't had any latino applicants, they can't possibly be guilty. Make sense?

The reason why intent is necessary is the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It's a really good idea if you want to avoid witch burnings or lynchings and class based punishment.

We have a political party that has bought into the idea that we should just treat all white people as guilty whether we have any proof of racism, racial discrimination, or not. The whole of an entire race is guilty.

Even if you are poor, uneducated, and never met a minority in your life....you're guilty because of the deeds of people who look like you in the past. This idea is the justification of the punishment of anyone white. You should shame them, deny them opportunities, remove them from positions of influence or power.

It's an extremely racist idea that has caught on rather quickly.

I used to think of the racists of the past as hateful or ignorant but really....now I realize they were dumb. The majority were just idiots. There's the occasional opportunist using ideas like this for gain...there's the occasional hate filled person. Now I just look back and think that the majority were simply too dumb or perhaps too cowardly to think for themselves.

 

[stevil]

Then move to N Korea, learn what minority rule is like (it's a minority of 1 there) and lemme know how that works out.

Misconstruing what I said again, taking things to the extreme again, how nice.

Things that deny people equal opportunities and rights by denying the basic dignity of every human being?

What has this got to do with what I said???

Great point. If you genuinely believe that, why are you defending racial discrimination?

Utter nonsense, just you misconstruing again.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Misconstruing what I said again, taking things to the extreme again, how nice.

You said you don't want majority rule. I understand the problem with majority rule. I can sit here and describe it in many different ways.

What I don't know is what other alternative that you are proposing? Minority rule? The smallest group should decide? Why? What kind of group? Racial, sexual, gender? Is it based upon victimhood?

Should we find the most mentally and physically disabled person who has the most struggles and put them in charge?

Telling me that you see a problem with majority rule is a bit like telling me donuts make people fat. I'm shocked. Is there something further you want to explain or is that all?

Do you have any alternative to out representative democracy or not? Are you a Marxist? A national socialist? I promise I won't attack you for holding a belief but if I think its a bad belief I will attack it.

That's not something you should try to avoid. That's a good thing. If you've never thought about why so many atheists come amongst the religious and attack their beliefs....it's because there is no teacher for atheism. You don't know if it's a good idea until it's been challenged in a very rigorous and complex way. I'm sure it just looks like meanness to Christians...but I think that's because to challenge your own beliefs you have to challenge the validity of other options. That looks mean when beliefs become a part of someone's identity.

But you don't like majority rule. What is the alternative you are proposing? I know most forms of government and how successful they have been and why they fail. If you have any option I'm not aware of I'm genuinely interested. If you're going to pick one I already know about...you should prepare for a pretty harsh attack on that idea.

 

[rturner76]

The only other real option is called "race essentialism" and that's where we look at race, make assumptions about it, and factor those assumptions into the way we treat people.

That's not the "only way" to look at it. Different people were brought up in different ways. It's not about making assumptions but giving the benefit of the doubt.

 

[rturner76]

It wasn't an explicitly stated advantage. It didn't achieve the magical level of equity people seem to claim to want. There's no real reason to believe this will either. To continue down this path is going to be pretty destructive.

I don't think AA is as pervasive as you think it is.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think AA is as pervasive as you think it is.

It's not.

 

[Sketcher]

I am not clear that such a thing could ever be substantiated. Maybe overlooked candidates believe it.

What do you think when you hear this: 'I was the best qualified but a [black/man/woman/younger/prettier/known-to the-panel*] person was given the post.'

I think - sour grapes.

* circle the one which applies

The people I've heard this from were told explicitly that they weren't picked because of diversity quotas. These examples were from back when that reason could be given more openly than it can be now.

 

[RDKirk]

The people I've heard this from were told explicitly that they weren't picked because of diversity quotas. These examples were from back when that reason could be given more openly than it can be now.

Or blame could be shifted more openly than it can be now.

Blacks make up only 13% of the population. Demographics alone show that if every single black person got hired, the impact still can't be over 13% overall. Which Fortune 500 companies are as much as 13% black at any level?

But now, if you start talking about white women, you have a case.

 

[bekkilyn]

Here's the thing I don't understand. So it seemed that for a while after the civil rights movement, we had "colorblindness" (for lack of better word) as a goal. That's not to say that we can't respect people's individual cultures and qualities and acknowledge them, but our goal was that people weren't to be judged positively or negatively simply on skin color. To me, that's what "colorblindness" is. And while I agree that we aren't there, that people do still consciously or unconsciously make such judgments, it was still a worthy goal to work towards for everyone.

But today it seems that "colorblindness" is evil. We are not to work towards such a goal, but rather the exact opposite because our goal today is to *define* people by such things as skin color because skin color is the primary indicator of who they are as a person and the values that they represent. If we practice "colorblindness" then we are denying people of everything that makes them them. Rather, we need to rank each other based on the color of our skin on a scale between oppressor and victim and if your skin color indicates that you are somewhere on the oppressor side, then you need to act "less" of that even if it is entirely impossible for you to *become* less of that because skin color is inherently who you primarily are and you can't ever change, which also means that victims or the oppressed will always be those things unless and until the oppressors are done away with, or at least completely segregated away so that the victims of oppression can be "safe".

So rather than working towards integration, we're working towards segregation, but supposedly because that's what "the oppressed" want in order to be "safe" from "the oppressors".

I just don't get it. Why does anyone need to be oppressed or oppressor and why would we be working towards more of that? And if it's something we can't change anyway, then why are we wasting time trying?

 

[Sketcher]

Or blame could be shifted more openly than it can be now.

I don't have a reason to believe it was blame shifting.

Blacks make up only 13% of the population. Demographics alone show that if every single black person got hired, the impact still can't be over 13% overall. Which Fortune 500 companies are as much as 13% black at any level?

But now, if you start talking about white women, you have a case.

Affirmative Action isn't all about blacks, I wasn't talking even primarily about blacks. I was talking about discriminating against white males in favor of anyone else. Including women.

 

[stevil]

You said you don't want majority rule. I understand the problem with majority rule. I can sit here and describe it in many different ways.

What I don't know is what other alternative that you are proposing? Minority rule? The smallest group should decide?

I don't feel you listen.

In my post that you responded to sarcastically suggesting I should live in North Korea. I said the following

I don't accept that a society should be based on majority rules.
For example, I don't consider gay marriage to be something that the people should vote on.
Government should have some limits.
They shouldn't be able to outlaw something, just because the majority wants it outlawed.
They should instead have to prove that something is dangerous to society otherwise they should not be able to stop consenting adults from doing things that don't harm others or society.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not the "only way" to look at it. Different people were brought up in different ways. It's not about making assumptions but giving the benefit of the doubt.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt that someone else is racially discriminating against them?

How is that any different from assuming that the crime of racial discrimination is happening and just skipping past the whole need for evidence?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't feel you listen.

There are limits on what the government can do. They're called human rights.

We haven't been perfect in recognizing them or protecting them....but it's a process we have improved upon. No nation starts perfect. If you don't want majority rule, explain whatever it is you do want.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Or blame could be shifted more openly than it can be now.

Blacks make up only 13% of the population. Demographics alone show that if every single black person got hired, the impact still can't be over 13% overall. Which Fortune 500 companies are as much as 13% black at any level?

But now, if you start talking about white women, you have a case.

Do you think people deserve opportunities like college or a job for characteristics like skin color?

Because I know the beliefs of the people who are pushing these ideas now....I know that even if that level of equity is reached, the bar will just move. The claim will change to something like "we've had x number of white presidents so we need to elect x number of black presidents".

Ibrahim X Kendi literally believes that a government agency should be created that isn't beholden to the people or any elected officials to determine which policies become law.

This doesn't stop at a few jobs and why would it? Affirmative action already gives some benefit to hiring minorities. If a group of people devised a method for gathering power and wealth at the expense of others it's silly to think they would just stop or give it up.

 

[Whyayeman]

I don't know the history of that term or how it was used. If it's an incident of racism or not I cannot say.

The discrimination in the YCCC scandal was not illegal, just offensive and hurtful. The victim complained and no disciplinary action was taken by club officials. On retirement he made his grievance public with the result that commercial sponsorship of the club has been withdrawn, officials including the club chairman and now its chief executive officer have resigned. International cricket matches are likely to be moved from their ground with the loss of millions in revenue for the club and the city of Leeds, where the ground is situated.

I mentioned this because it has parallels with cases of so-called 'unconscious racism'. It could not have been unconscious in this instance. The point of 'banter' - playful insults and other teasing utterances meant to be funny and unhurtful. If it is insulting or hurtful and the recipient of it says so it should stop. It went on for years, apparently.

We certainly consider the remarks (not yet made public but generally thought to be as suggested above) as racist, though not a matter for the law.

 

[RDKirk]

Do you think people deserve opportunities like college or a job for characteristics like skin color?

I do believe that diversity is an inherent benefit to an organization in a multi-ethnic society. If there are 10 slots with 50 qualified people, and 10 of those people are minorities, giving one of those slots to a minority is a good thing for the organization.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't have a reason to believe it was blame shifting.


Affirmative Action isn't all about blacks, I wasn't talking even primarily about blacks. I was talking about discriminating against white males in favor of anyone else. Including women.

Let's make sure we include them, because, as comedian Bill Burr noted, "They were able to lift their Guccied boots over the wall of oppression and take over the entire movement."

 

[rturner76]

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt that someone else is racially discriminating against them?

How is that any different from assuming that the crime of racial discrimination is happening and just skipping past the whole need for evidence?

Well if you are having trouble one should document each situation where you experience something racially motivated.

I was really talking about the benefit of the doubt in a more general sense.