And Back to Racial Discrimination

[Ana the Ist]

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 On retirement he made his grievance public with the result that commercial sponsorship of the club has been withdrawn, officials including the club chairman and now its chief executive officer have resigned.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.

In the US that would fall under harassment in the workplace.

You just have to show it happened.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

I'm pointing out that a large number of people in a political party have adopted racist beliefs.

Where do you think this will lead? A more fair and equitable society?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Ok....why is racial diversity a good thing?

I know you aren't a race essentialist in your mind, so I'm going to set that aside because it might be hard for you to explain without sounding like one....

Please explain the benefits of a racially diverse workplace?

 

[RDKirk]

Ok....why is racial diversity a good thing?

I know you aren't a race essentialist in your mind, so I'm going to set that aside because it might be hard for you to explain without sounding like one....

Please explain the benefits of a racially diverse workplace?

First, I did not specify "racial" diversity. I caught you moving that goalpost.

But diversity of viewpoint, diversity of corporate culture to be similar to national culture, is an inherent good thing for an organization.

Even human genetics values diversity, as we see what happens with inbreeding.

 

[Ana the Ist]

First, I did not specify "racial" diversity. I caught you moving that goalpost.

But diversity of viewpoint, diversity of corporate culture to be similar to national culture, is an inherent good thing for an organization.

Even human genetics values diversity, as we see what happens with inbreeding.

I agree completely .

The problem is that this isn't a selection of viewpoint diversity.

This is explicitly selecting for race. If they claim that leads to viewpoint diversity it's because as race essentialist....they believe they can determine which views you hold by your race.

These are racists.

That's why when some brave black people speak out against the conformist beliefs these racists have....and express their individual views....they get labeled white supremacists.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree completely .

The problem is that this isn't a selection of viewpoint diversity.

This is explicitly selecting for race. If they claim that leads to viewpoint diversity it's because as race essentialist....they believe they can determine which views you hold by your race.

These are racists.

That's why when some brave black people speak out against the conformist beliefs these racists have....and express their individual views....they get labeled white supremacists.

At this point in American society, race still strongly indicates a difference in viewpoint, and it would be inane to argue otherwise.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

In most universities it's a factor in admissions but I can't honestly say how big a factor. I'm not arguing against it. Giving some consideration of circumstances of historical injustice and what obstacles those create is tricky....but justifiable. In the corporate world, it is incentivized but not required.

The idea being pushed now is far different from that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

At this point in American society, race still strongly indicates a difference in viewpoint, and it would be inane to argue otherwise.

Ok....

So you believe I can show you a picture of a person and you can tell me what beliefs and values he holds? What his perspective is?

 

[RDKirk]

Ok....

So you believe I can show you a picture of a person and you can tell me what beliefs and values he holds? What his perspective is?

Not what I said.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not what I said.

What are you saying? I don't think I can tell someone's viewpoint by race. I don't even think I can correctly identify race. If you lined up 8 Mexicans and 2 Persians....I've got very little confidence I could consistently pick out the Persians.

I've got 0 confidence that I can tell you what they believe.

If you think that we should select for diversity of viewpoints....why wouldn't we do that instead? Survey applicants on their views and select accordingly?

You might end up with a workforce that looks similar but isn't that a better way to get diversity?

 

[Sketcher]

People forget this when they say we need to atone for the inequity of the past.

We've had 4 decades of affirmative action. Preferences for minorities and blacks in particular in both universities and job hiring.

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.

There's a couple of different levels that this stuff operates on. Practical, and ideological.

Practically speaking, I don't think these hiring practices are making the colleges and universities better. They're bigger and costlier, but they're beginning to stymie their own research with political correctness (Dr. Debra Soh, for example) so they're providing less of a benefit to the public for the money they take in.

Ideologically speaking, when someone says "atone" for the inequity of the past, I can't think of any level of payment that would satisfy everyone who claims to be a victim. If someone lives in the US, and enjoys the higher standard of living here compared to so many other countries, and the level of opportunity that it provides, and still claims victimhood, that person does not strike me as easy to please. Now, there are groups who have been legitimately wronged, and there are varying levels of discontent - some of the more productive folks among such groups might be content with a certain level of "atonement". But the people driving the conversation are the people who feel the most aggrieved and are hardest to please (regardless of whether or not they have more legitimate grievances than others of the same category who complain less, and would be content with less). The nature of perpetual victimhood does not lend itself to being pleased. Thus there is always "atonement" that needs to happen, from the pockets of the white earners to theirs, regardless of whether or not these white earners actually oppressed anybody.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's a couple of different levels that this stuff operates on. Practical, and ideological.

Agreed.

Practically speaking, I don't think these hiring practices are making the colleges and universities better. They're bigger and costlier, but they're beginning to stymie their own research with political correctness (Dr. Debra Soh, for example) so they're providing less of a benefit to the public for the money they take in.

There's an ideological bubble that formed that became a problem...maybe related to AA.

The idea was that they would go into business degrees, statistics, science, medicine, the kinds of degrees that lead to profitable careers and lift themselves into middle or upper class.

Unfortunately a lot went into less profitable degrees...social work and humanities. If you went into social work, you probably still struggled economically. If you went into humanities, you're probably a part of this racist ideology that has embedded itself into the left under the guise of progress.

Ideologically speaking, when someone says "atone" for the inequity of the past, I can't think of any level of payment that would satisfy everyone who claims to be a victim.

Yeah there is no undoing what was done. Putting a dollar value on slavery is a pretty disgusting idea.

If someone lives in the US, and enjoys the higher standard of living here compared to so many other countries, and the level of opportunity that it provides, and still claims victimhood, that person does not strike me as easy to please. Now, there are groups who have been legitimately wronged, and there are varying levels of discontent - some of the more productive folks among such groups might be content with a certain level of "atonement". But the people driving the conversation are the people who feel the most aggrieved and are hardest to please (regardless of whether or not they have more legitimate grievances than others of the same category who complain less, and would be content with less). The nature of perpetual victimhood does not lend itself to being pleased. Thus there is always "atonement" that needs to happen, from the pockets of the white earners to theirs, regardless of whether or not these white earners actually oppressed anybody.

As I pointed out many times....there is no real difference between the way they describe white supremacy and what we call western civilization. This is a clever "framing" trick. No one wants to defend white supremacy but people will defend western civilization. To give the devil his due...this is clever and has gotten them pretty far. It allows them to criticize even mathematics at this point and shut down arguments by labeling disagreement as defending white supremacy.

The problem is they are really really stupid so they just think of how useful this framing trick is now....and not the likely consequences later.

For example, 10 years down the road if people genuinely conflate the two ideas....you'll see a lot of open defense of white supremacy. It will lose its "bite" as a moral accusation. After all, if western civilization and white supremacy are the same thing....then the best places in the world to live are white supremacist nations.

Not hard to reach that conclusion.

The other problem is that by using that justification to discriminate against whites, they will inevitably create a situation where every white person 15 or 20 years from now either has been denied opportunities or knows someone who has, or knows someone who knows someone who has.

At that point, white supremacy starts to look like a legitimate option. Calling people white supremacists for wanting to be treated as equals is going to be a big problem. It won't be difficult for an opportunist to give people a new narrative that takes pride in white identity and blames everything on those who aren't white.

I think we can see right now just how easy and popular those narratives are. They won't have to reach into the distant past or come up with invisible methods for it. They'll be living in it. They can point to it.

I don't want that to happen.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's a couple of different levels that this stuff operates on. Practical, and ideological.

Practically speaking, I don't think these hiring practices are making the colleges and universities better. They're bigger and costlier, but they're beginning to stymie their own research with political correctness (Dr. Debra Soh, for example) so they're providing less of a benefit to the public for the money they take in.

Ideologically speaking, when someone says "atone" for the inequity of the past, I can't think of any level of payment that would satisfy everyone who claims to be a victim. If someone lives in the US, and enjoys the higher standard of living here compared to so many other countries, and the level of opportunity that it provides, and still claims victimhood, that person does not strike me as easy to please. Now, there are groups who have been legitimately wronged, and there are varying levels of discontent - some of the more productive folks among such groups might be content with a certain level of "atonement". But the people driving the conversation are the people who feel the most aggrieved and are hardest to please (regardless of whether or not they have more legitimate grievances than others of the same category who complain less, and would be content with less). The nature of perpetual victimhood does not lend itself to being pleased. Thus there is always "atonement" that needs to happen, from the pockets of the white earners to theirs, regardless of whether or not these white earners actually oppressed anybody.

I kind of drifted off your point about victimhood....sorry for that.

It's the nature of Critical Pedagogy and the fundamental problem of Marxism. Marx is in my opinion the dumbest political philosopher in history. He made some valid criticisms of capitalism, mostly stolen from early advocates of capitalism, and then described a utopian idea of a perfectly equal society that cannot exist. It's an attractive idea to those living in denial or struggling with difficult situations.

He is to my knowledge the only philosopher to come up with an idea for how things should be....an then openly admit he has no idea how to achieve it and everyone should figure it out. The attempts to figure out how to reach this goal have done nothing but cause suffering and misery. Critical Pedagogy came to the conclusion that the reason why western civilization seemed immune to communism is that we all accept cultural ideas as normal. That creates a sense of solidarity.

They saw the weakness of western civilization as it's willingness to allow self criticism. They concluded that if a sustained and unrelenting criticism of everything about western civilization was made successful...division would be sown and power could be gained. You will notice that every single CRT author is anti-capitalist...or claims to be.

I was never really concerned with racists or Marxists because frankly, these are bad ideas. One need only look at history to figure that out. What I didn't realize is just how packed with the uneducated this nation is. Apparently if you call racial discrimination diversity and inclusion....people will support it. Apparently if you describe communism as equity....people will sign on.

The notion of victimhood is directly related to their idea of privilege and its backwards and frankly, a stupid idea. It's true I don't experience the discrimination a black person does...if it's related to his skin color. Does that mean I don't experience discrimination for being white? Of course not. We can't assume the discrimination though....nor can we reasonable comparison between other kinds of discrimination....nor can we rationalize that all discrimination black men experience is the same.

There's no way to weigh one type of discrimination against another. To describe these as privileges is stupid. I won't be denied a job for being black....that's true. For that to actually make my life easier though...I would have to apply for a job that a black person is applying for, and he has to be discriminated against for being black. If that doesn't happen....my white privilege doesn't help me in any way at all. It's backwards.

I'm an atheist. I've faced discrimination for it. I won't go into detail because I hate the idea of being considered a victim...but the worst example was at work, it lasted around 2 years, and it resulted in a loss of opportunity. I sought no justice, no redress, and when the opportunity was given me...I explained that I believed I had handled it correctly and to seek redress now would just cause more problems.

Do all the believers in the US benefit from believer privilege because they won't experience that? Of course not. Do we live in a system of rampant anti-atheism? No. Should we just assume that this is happening unconsciously and through bias? You can if you want but that's not a problem to solve.

I've seen a group of former pastors, priests, reverend, rabbis and other church leaders who become atheists. The discrimination I've faced looks pathetic next to theirs. They have to choose between living a lie...and losing everything. That's an extremely difficult choice. They lose their jobs, families, friends, and communities. Many choose to live the lie. If you're in Islam, you can lose your life literally.

How does one compare the discrimination I've faced with that? How does having to send out a couple of extra resumes to get a job interview compare with that?

Anyone claiming to have lost their families, job, community, friends, and have their lives threatened because of their identity? If not begin your atonement.

My point isn't that atheists should be treated as victims. It's that no one chooses the obstacles they face. No one can avoid the likelihood of being treated unfairly or even harshly for reasons beyond their control. We can only play the hand we were dealt and strive for better. If you think you are genuinely discriminated against by all means seek justice if you want. That's an option given you that began from the legal system founded by those white supremacists you hate so much. Most nations don't give you the option.

 

[Sketcher]

The other problem is that by using that justification to discriminate against whites, they will inevitably create a situation where every white person 15 or 20 years from now either has been denied opportunities or knows someone who has, or knows someone who knows someone who has.

At that point, white supremacy starts to look like a legitimate option. Calling people white supremacists for wanting to be treated as equals is going to be a big problem. It won't be difficult for an opportunist to give people a new narrative that takes pride in white identity and blames everything on those who aren't white.

I think we can see right now just how easy and popular those narratives are. They won't have to reach into the distant past or come up with invisible methods for it. They'll be living in it. They can point to it.

I don't want that to happen.

The problem for those in favor of denying opportunities from white males because they are white males is that even if they don't believe the grievances of the white males are legitimate, the white males do. Where the grievance exists, the possibility of backlash exists. Deny a white male a job because he doesn't tick the diversity checkbox, and he has both a grievance and more time on his hands. If he's able to get another job, he'll still have the grievance but at least he'll be busy. If he's not able to get another job right away, that gives him more time to read and think about political positions sympathetic to his situation, and to protest, and to go to meetings. At these protests and meetings, he would meet other aggrieved white males, some of whom may be more extreme than he is, and there's a risk that he would be sucked into the more extreme views himself. Leftists simultaneously claim that white male extremists are an existential threat to this nation, while pushing a hiring and admission policy that adds to, rather than subtracts from their number. It's insane.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The problem for those in favor of denying opportunities from white males because they are white males is that even if they don't believe the grievances of the white males are legitimate, the white males do. Where the grievance exists, the possibility of backlash exists. Deny a white male a job because he doesn't tick the diversity checkbox, and he has both a grievance and more time on his hands. If he's able to get another job, he'll still have the grievance but at least he'll be busy. If he's not able to get another job right away, that gives him more time to read and think about political positions sympathetic to his situation, and to protest, and to go to meetings. At these protests and meetings, he would meet other aggrieved white males, some of whom may be more extreme than he is, and there's a risk that he would be sucked into the more extreme views himself. Leftists simultaneously claim that white male extremists are an existential threat to this nation, while pushing a hiring and admission policy that adds to, rather than subtracts from their number. It's insane.

It depends on how widely this spreads and how popular the ideology pushing it becomes. That will determine the time frame of the backlash and its severity. The best case scenario is a sort of ideological witchhunt that ends up with some key figures paying the price.

But I think that's optimistic. You have to look at the civil rights movement. Those people lived under a two tiered system that claimed to value equality under the law. They were legitimately angry. We like to remember it as a peaceful movement because MLK won out. He presented a way forward for everyone.

That's a myth though....MLK barely won out. Many civil rights groups were explicitly violent and nationalistic. They would be rightly described as domestic terrorists today. Some were extremely popular....and had chapters across the US. Many included extremely racist beliefs.

They lost out. They lacked the numbers and had no real outside appeal.

If a similar movement began a couple of decades from now over similar grievances (frankly the exact same grievances, a two tiered system)...I don't see peace and acceptance winning out. They'll be able to point out that was already tried. They'll have the numbers that didn't exist in the civil rights movement....they won't need outside acceptance or support. They'll just need to promote a positive group identity and that has been robbed of them and the future of their children. They'll probably claim to have been robbed of their culture and dignity and greatness. They will be angry.

It's easy to think they will be stopped but....this ideology is currently in the wrong institutions to stop them. They are really well acquainted with the power of words, narratives, and how to spread them. They don't really understand the power of violence and fear. They have relentlessly attacked the police and demoralized them...so I don't see the police helping. If they succeed in gaining more power and actually defunding police....police and former police might join them. The military might step in...but if they do so it has to be really careful. I don't think the FBI is equipped to manage a crisis of that magnitude.

No I don't think peace would win out. There's a real risk of extreme violence being normalized and used to gain power. At that point the US won't be recognizable.

 

[A_Thinker]

Ok....why is racial diversity a good thing?

I know you aren't a race essentialist in your mind, so I'm going to set that aside because it might be hard for you to explain without sounding like one....

Please explain the benefits of a racially diverse workplace?

America is racially diverse.

So America either diversifies opportunity for full participation in all aspects of the society ... or America allows significant portions of the society to be non-diversified, ... which will breed its own problems.

America just made the commitment to work on eliminating exclusionist policies in its society some 60 years ago. And, yes, some progress has been made. For example, we have had one president, out of 45, that was not a white male. Anybody who thinks that a society which practiced blatant discrimination based on race and gender for 500 years, ... has completely turned that corner in 60 years is fooling themselves ... or has no sense of the lessons of history.

White men still occupy the vast majority of the seats of power and influence in the country.

If everyone in the country started out on an equal basis, as our nation's ideals declare should be the case, ... then white men would have some justification to reason that, somehow, they are entitled to their obvious advantage in this society. But, of course, everybody knows that for 500 years, the society itself carved out that entitlement for them, regardless of their worthiness to occupy that advantage.

One of the saddest things to see is advantaged persons ... whining that they are afraid of losing their advantage ... and compete in society on an equal basis with their fellow citizens ...

 

[Whyayeman]

American and British societies are not as egalitarian as many liberal-minded people want them to be. It is not hard to see the problems and pitfalls resulting from positive discrimination towards minorities and under-represented groups, in employment, selection for promotion and so on. It is not hard to see the motivation either. It is also easy to spot the resentments such policies can stir up.

What should liberal men and women of good will do? Doing nothing seems supine - and illiberal.

 

[RDKirk]

It depends on how widely this spreads and how popular the ideology pushing it becomes. That will determine the time frame of the backlash and its severity. The best case scenario is a sort of ideological witchhunt that ends up with some key figures paying the price.

But I think that's optimistic. You have to look at the civil rights movement. Those people lived under a two tiered system that claimed to value equality under the law. They were legitimately angry. We like to remember it as a peaceful movement because MLK won out. He presented a way forward for everyone.

That's a myth though....MLK barely won out. Many civil rights groups were explicitly violent and nationalistic. They would be rightly described as domestic terrorists today. Some were extremely popular....and had chapters across the US. Many included extremely racist beliefs.

They lost out. They lacked the numbers and had no real outside appeal.

If a similar movement began a couple of decades from now over similar grievances (frankly the exact same grievances, a two tiered system)...I don't see peace and acceptance winning out. They'll be able to point out that was already tried. They'll have the numbers that didn't exist in the civil rights movement....they won't need outside acceptance or support. They'll just need to promote a positive group identity and that has been robbed of them and the future of their children. They'll probably claim to have been robbed of their culture and dignity and greatness. They will be angry.

It's easy to think they will be stopped but....this ideology is currently in the wrong institutions to stop them. They are really well acquainted with the power of words, narratives, and how to spread them. They don't really understand the power of violence and fear. They have relentlessly attacked the police and demoralized them...so I don't see the police helping. If they succeed in gaining more power and actually defunding police....police and former police might join them. The military might step in...but if they do so it has to be really careful. I don't think the FBI is equipped to manage a crisis of that magnitude.

No I don't think peace would win out. There's a real risk of extreme violence being normalized and used to gain power. At that point the US won't be recognizable.

All of that is rubbish from the third paragraph.

 

[rturner76]

American and British societies are not as egalitarian as many liberal-minded people want them to be. It is not hard to see the problems and pitfalls resulting from positive discrimination towards minorities and under-represented groups, in employment, selection for promotion and so on. It is not hard to see the motivation either. It is also easy to spot the resentments such policies can stir up.

What should liberal men and women of good will do? Doing nothing seems supine - and illiberal.

The first thing to do is to question the preconceived notions we have about other people.

 

[Whyayeman]

The first thing to do is to question the preconceived notions we have about other people.

I had sort of assumed that liberal-minded people had got beyond that. I am more interested in practical measures to ameliorate discriminatory practices (conscious or not, deliberate or incidental) towards minorities and under-represented groups, in employment, selection for promotion and so on.