Romance is Racist

[RDKirk]

That's a fair point, but the flipside of it is true too - if you give people the excuse that it's personal responsibility, they'll cling to that and resist any systemic changes to address the situation.

I haven't seen any regular black people who have taken personal responsibility for their situation (and by "take," I mean actually working for their own betterment) also say that nobody else need do anything to improve the situation. Yes, you can find black grifters (people making money flapping their mouths) who will say that, just as you will find grifters making their money saying the opposite. But you won't find black people who are "moving on up" by their own efforts saying such a thing.

This is the difference I've spoken of between "shamans" and "chiefs." They shamans say it's for the gods to create a benign environment. The chiefs don't deny that, but they get people working regardless of the environment.

And, frankly, the government is better positioned to make a real difference in this scenario than relying on millions of people exercising their personal responsibility.

Only to a point. From the 14th Amendment up to the early 1900s, the newly freed Black Americans were making tremendous upward strides. Given that early trajectory, slavery would have had nil continuing effect within a hundred years. What happened was Jim Crow, which hardened in the early 1900s.

Yes, Jim Crow was a government action, and government action is always more effective in the negative than it is in the positive. That's not to say government action can never be positive,. but people are always more naturally willing to do evil than to do good. The Civil Rights Act (including a couple of following "enablement" acts) was just a repeal of laws and policies that had kept black people from improving.

 

[RDKirk]

I wonder if the students in these classes ever call out these so called 'professors' for the garbage they spew?.....or are they really that gullible?

If they do, they get immediately stamped down in front of everyone in the class. Remember that students who object are unlikely to have the rhetorical tools at the tips of their tongues to debate the professor's long-learned rhetoric, nor does the student have the organizational power to stand in debate against the professor.

These professors act even to remove other professors who might debate them. Former Harvard University President Claudine Gray had done exactly that to a much-better-credentialed black professor at Harvard who debated her DEI viewpoints.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I haven't seen any regular black people who have taken personal responsibility for their situation (and by "take," I mean actually working for their own betterment) also say that nobody else need do anything to improve the situation. Yes, you can find black grifters (people making money flapping their mouths) who will say that, just as you will find grifters making their money saying the opposite. But you won't find black people who are "moving on up" by their own efforts saying such a thing.

This is the difference I've spoken of between "shamans" and "chiefs." They shamans say it's for the gods to create a benign environment. The chiefs don't deny that, but they get people working regardless of the environment.

Maybe you don't know any black folks who are "moving on up" who make that argument, but the hyper-focus on individualism and rejection of systemic factors is extremely common in conservative white communities - it's arguably a pillar of their entire worldview.

 

[RDKirk]

Maybe you don't know any black folks who are "moving on up" who make that argument, but the hyper-focus on individualism and rejection of systemic factors is extremely common in conservative white communities - it's arguably a pillar of their entire worldview.

I'm not talking about what white people are saying among themselves. That's not a part of this discussion.

Black people who are "moving on up" by their own efforts acknowledge the effects of racism...they just prove that it's only like running into a headwind, not like running into a wall.

Racism before the Civil Rights Act was like running into a wall; today it's like running into a headwind. And lots of people are dealing with headwinds: Short people, unattractive people, fat people, introverted people, et cetera.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm not talking about what white people are saying among themselves. That's not a part of this discussion.

They're not merely saying it among themselves. They're preaching it from their pulpits; building their political philosophies on it; and crafting policy around it. Most any black conservative I see put forward by the conservative establishment espouses similar views.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Or that her data is incomplete and there's the possibility to draw multiple conclusions from it. Unfortunately, that's frequently the case with sociology. I think she also plays up the racial side of things in interviews for publicity/controversy purposes.

That doesn't mean that her observations are incorrect though. For instance, I think there's a kernel of truth in her work on fatphobia - in one article of hers that I've read, she points out that the root cause of health problems for Black women is their environment - they typically live high-stress lives due to poverty, they live in areas that frequently have higher levels of pollution and health hazards (i.e. pests, mold), and they often lack convenient access to healthy food. If you just say "Oh, the problem is that you're fat!," that doesn't address the underlying issues. I think there's a misconception that losing weight is an easy thing for anyone to do - after all, all you have to do is change your diet and exercise more. But that can be easier said than done. In other words, she's not saying that being fat is necessarily healthy, but rather that we would see better overall health outcomes if we focused more on solving the root causes of poor health rather than just telling people to lose weight.

I think the ample data available on obesity would indicate that perhaps we're putting too much blame on "lack of access to healthy food" or claiming "we just haven't tried to solve the underlying issues"

The obesity problem we have in the US isn't a "black or white thing", it's an American thing.

Perhaps 30-40 years ago, one could make a case that certain groups lacked access to healthier food options.

But that's not the case anymore. If you live within a 15 minute commute to a WalMart, Giant Eagle, or Acme, you've got access to healthier food options that aren't more expensive than the junk food.

Vs

(people are likely walking right past the former, and picking the latter)

In fact, there's more healthy food options available now (even at restaurants) that there ever were, people just aren't choosing them.

If you look at the first option I posted above, a person could get 4 to 5 meals out of that for barely more than what 1 meal at McDonald's would cost.

People want to eat the stuff that they think tastes good (which I get), but we've had a rather indulgent culture when it comes to food.

Trying to take what's a self-control issue, and re-package it as some sort of evidence of systemic injustice issue would lead me to believe that a person is inclined to already want to believe the latter.

 

[RDKirk]

They're not merely saying it among themselves. They're preaching it from their pulpits; building their political philosophies on it; and crafting policy around it. Most any black conservative I see put forward by the conservative establishment espouses similar views.

I will repeat this: "Yes, you can find black grifters (people making money flapping their mouths) who will say that, just as you will find grifters making their money saying the opposite."

 

[RDKirk]

I think the ample data available on obesity would indicate that perhaps we're putting too much blame on "lack of access to healthy food" or claiming "we just haven't tried to solve the underlying issues"

The obesity problem we have in the US isn't a "black or white thing", it's an American thing.

Perhaps 30-40 years ago, one could make a case that certain groups lacked access to healthier food options.

But that's not the case anymore. If you live within a 15 minute commute to a WalMart, Giant Eagle, or Acme, you've got access to healthier food options that aren't more expensive than the junk food.

View attachment 350493View attachment 350496

Vs

View attachment 350494View attachment 350495
(people are likely walking right past the former, and picking the latter)

In fact, there's more healthy food options available now (even at restaurants) that there ever were, people just aren't choosing them.

If you look at the first option I posted above, a person could get 4 to 5 meals out of that for barely more than what 1 meal at McDonald's would cost.

People want to eat the stuff that they think tastes good (which I get), but we've had a rather indulgent culture when it comes to food.

Trying to take what's a self-control issue, and re-package it as some sort of evidence of systemic injustice issue would lead me to believe that a person is inclined to already want to believe the latter.

It's possible for multiple things to be simultaneously true.

There is still a valid argument that healthy food options are expensive options. We see that in our own food budget, as my wife shops carefully for those healthy food options. "Organic" costs substantially more, and travelling to find organic costs substantially more in time and expense.

Sometimes less-than-"organic" is satisfactory, but that takes diligent research to determine. Trying to find the best value in eggs, for instance, takes knowledgeable discernment of various marketing terms: What is the different in eggs between "organically fed" or "free range" or "pasture-raised." Those terms do not mean the same thing, but they result in considerable differences in the nutritional value of eggs as well as cost.

I've just spoken of things that are not specifically matters of race. Although one can easily point out disparities that are visible by race, the optimum solutions are not race-based.

But...it's possible for multiple things to be simultaneously true: Walmart "Great Value" items are certainly not going to be organic (which would be best), but non-organic broccoli as one's daily helping of vegetable is a considerable degree better than McDonald's French fries.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I haven't seen any regular black people who have taken personal responsibility for their situation (and by "take," I mean actually working for their own betterment) also say that nobody else need do anything to improve the situation. Yes, you can find black grifters (people making money flapping their mouths) who will say that, just as you will find grifters making their money saying the opposite. But you won't find black people who are "moving on up" by their own efforts saying such a thing.

My point was that the people in power in government - those who make policy - say that it's an issue of personal responsibility, and therefore they need not make any policy changes to support it. What the black community says about it isn't really relevant unless they're in the position to be making policy.

 

[RDKirk]

My point was that the people in power in government - those who make policy - say that it's an issue of personal responsibility, and therefore they need not make any policy changes to support it. What the black community says about it isn't really relevant unless they're in the position to be making policy.

Well, that's the major difference between the Republican and Democratic platforms, isn't it?

It's also possible for multiple things to be simultaneously wrong.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's possible for multiple things to be simultaneously true.

There is still a valid argument that healthy food options are expensive options. We see that in our own food budget, as my wife shops carefully for those healthy food options. "Organic" costs substantially more, and travelling to find organic costs substantially more in time and expense.

Sometimes less-than-"organic" is satisfactory, but that takes diligent research to determine. Trying to find the best value in eggs, for instance, takes knowledgeable discernment of various marketing terms: What is the different in eggs between "organically fed" or "free range" or "pasture-raised." Those terms do not mean the same thing, but they result in considerable differences in the nutritional value of eggs as well as cost.

I've just spoken of things that are not specifically matters of race. Although one can easily point out disparities that are visible by race, the optimum solutions are not race-based.

But...it's possible for multiple things to be simultaneously true: Walmart "Great Value" items are certainly not going to be organic (which would be best), but non-organic broccoli as one's daily helping of vegetable is a considerable degree better than McDonald's French fries.

What you're describing could be actually part of the issue (which could be solved by education and research into the topic)

The perception that organic magically equates to vastly superior in terms of health can leave people with the impression that "eating healthy" means having to go to a Whole Foods (or something similar) and pay triple for one's weekly grocery trip.

Is organic better? — Harvard Gazette

Not if you follow the evidence, says agriculture and food policy scholar Robert Paarlberg.

news.harvard.edu

Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds

med.stanford.edu

The differences they have found have been largely insignificant. While specific organic foods may have a slight increase in certain vitamins/nutrients, it's certainly not enough to offset the price...and it usually pertains to vitamins and nutrients that people aren't "low on" anyway.

 

[RDKirk]

The differences they have found have been largely insignificant. While specific organic foods may have a slight increase in certain vitamins/nutrients, it's certainly not enough to offset the price...and it usually pertains to vitamins and nutrients that people aren't "low on" anyway.

That study:

"They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure."

Wait, what? Sixty years ago, before the explosion of chemicalization of the food supply in the 70s and when the use of pesticides was the only food issue, it was a huge issue (the equivalent of lead in paints and gasoline). So, now...are there are so many other issues that long-run use of pesticides is merely parenthetical? As one of my commanders said to us, "Were you lying to me then, or are you lying to me now?"

"Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did find lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children on organic diets, though the significance of these findings on child health is unclear. Additionally, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the clinical significance of this is also unclear."

They couldn't locate the studies indicating pesticides in the urine of children was significant or that reduction of exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria is significant?

"There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids."

They couldn't locate the studies indicating the need for omega-3 fatty acids, whose presence in the body blocks the accumulation of omega-6 fatty acids?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That study:

"They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure."

Wait, what? Sixty years ago, before the explosion of chemicalization of the food supply in the 70s and when the use of pesticides was the only food issue, it was a huge issue (the equivalent of lead in paints and gasoline). So, now...are there are so many other issues that long-run use of pesticides is merely parenthetical? As one of my commanders said to us, "Were you lying to me then, or are you lying to me now?"

"Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did find lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children on organic diets, though the significance of these findings on child health is unclear. Additionally, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the clinical significance of this is also unclear."

They couldn't locate the studies indicating pesticides in the urine of children was significant or that reduction of exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria is significant?

"There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids."

They couldn't locate the studies indicating the need for omega-3 fatty acids, whose presence in the body blocks the accumulation of omega-6 fatty acids?

The details are important with regards to this particular sub-topic though (I realize that we've veered wildly off the original topic lol)

The reasons why it's unclear is because the concentrations are the critical to understanding risks, and merely excreting something in urine isn't directly correlated to any sort of internal damage or health concerns. If we're talking about a substance that the body can very efficiently excrete, say, 100mg of per day with no issues (just using a number at random). Then consuming 2mg vs. 3mg of it would be, as the article mentioned, "Clinically insignificant" (despite the latter technically being a "50% increase", which makes it sound more "serious" than what it actually is)

If you take an statistically negligible amount of something, and either cut it in half, or double it, the end result in most cases its that it's still negligible.

The Organic Milk / Grass Feed Beef arguments typically highlight what I'm talking about.

They typically phrase it as "Grass Fed has 300% the amount of Omega-3 as grain fed".
(sounds impressive at first glance)

However, when you actually look at the numbers:

The general recommendation is to get over 1000mg per day.

(standard serving size)
Grain-Fed beef 20mg
Grass-Fed beef 60mg
Single serving of salmon 1800mg

So if people are concerned about levels of Omega-3 and Omega-6 they're consuming....that's I fine I suppose, but beef in general (grass or grain) isn't a particularly high source of either one. So if meeting the recommended amount of Omega-3 is the primary concern, paying double for a steak really isn't going a long way to accomplishing that.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well, that's the major difference between the Republican and Democratic platforms, isn't it?

In an overly-reductive sense, kind of. But in practice, Republicans (at least in recent years) have been taking their side of things further to the extreme than Democrats when it comes to actual policy positions.

 

[RileyG]

That was painful to watch!

I’m really scratching my head on this one!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In an overly-reductive sense, kind of. But in practice, Republicans (at least in recent years) have been taking their side of things further to the extreme than Democrats when it comes to actual policy positions.

I think that could be debatable with regards to the social issues. (the economic issues are a different story)

And there's actually a few issues one can point to where, overall, the Republicans are to left of where the Democrats were back in the 90s.


If we just take the topic of abortion (which is one of the social issues where the right has shifted further right)

Back when there was a "middle ground" that a plurality generally agreed on
"Safe, Legal, and Rare" (back in the Clinton-era 90's)

Which position is deviating from that middle ground more?
"No elective abortions after 6-12 weeks, with exceptions for health matters"
or
"Abortion on-demand, for any reason at all, tax payer funded, with no gestational limit"

While both represent a shift away from that middle-ground compromise that everyone could at least live with (even if it wasn't their ideal), I don't know that we can suggest that the former is more "extreme" than the latter.

Another topic would be gay marriage, you're more likely to find a republican who's okay with it in 2024 than would've been to find a Democrat who was in 1996. Heck, over half of republicans support gay marriage now. When Obama ran the first time, he ran on "civil unions ok; but marriage should be between a man and a woman"

Same is true for marijuana legalization...



A good rule of thumb, I don't know that one can accuse an opposing party of a "drastic shift to <insert direction here>" if they're outflanking where one's own party was 12 years ago on an issue. Because when that's the case, that means they've actually moved toward your direction, just not as rapidly as your own side has moved toward it.

A common mistake is judging "how far left/right" a party is moving based on the median voter from the other side and only using a 3-year lens.


As I noted, the economic issues are a bit of the inverse, where for years the Democrats have conceded ground on those and shifted rightward in some realms. Evidenced by the overall declines in union membership, as well as the fact that you're almost just as likely to find an elected democrat who's in bed with wall street as you are a republican.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

*snip*

None of this is relevant to the discussion. I wasn't speaking about generalized pushes towards a liberal/conservative worldview, but rather policies surrounding a specific issue - the idea of personal vs government responsibility. Republican policies in recent years have pushed towards the extreme of mandating personal responsibility for as much as possible while minimizing the role of government - "small government," deregulation, cutting welfare, etc. Democrats have pushed in the opposite direction, obviously, trying to get the government to take more control of things like healthcare and environmental regulations, but their philosophy seems to be more about having the government deal with the things it is suited to deal with, rather than complete abdication of personal responsibility.

 

[RDKirk]

In an overly-reductive sense, kind of. But in practice, Republicans (at least in recent years) have been taking their side of things further to the extreme than Democrats when it comes to actual policy positions.

I don't think so. The Marxism of Critical Theory has gone deeply into the Biden Administration and into government in general.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wonder if the students in these classes ever call out these so called 'professors' for the garbage they spew?.....or are they really that gullible?

I know of one student who would offer criticisms of the Critical Studies we did in class, and he was generally amiable and philosophical about his proposed reconsiderations when he gave them.

As time goes on, however, I notice he's slowly beginning to find it more difficult to remain amiable when stronger Neo-Marxist style views are pushed.

 

[FireDragon76]

I saw this video yesterday. Jonathan Bi's interpretation of Rousseau's critique of intellectuals reminded me of this thread:

To summarize, intellectuals aren't motivated by truth-telling, but by contrarianism and intellectual pride.