Discrimination -- the reality

[Toni]

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...

This all sounds highly implausible. Only white people have the competence and intelligence and constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation.

Ahh it's the ole, everyone did it so stop complaining stance. That's the verbal equivalent of a crane kick; looks good, but in reality doesn't work.

Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.

The point is not 'stop complaining'--though without a time machine, what people did before you were born is not something that can be changed. The point is 'you're not a special subjugated snowflake, and nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did'.

During WWII, Nazis stole countless pieces of art and jewelry belonging to the Jewish people they tried to obliterate from the earth. They were fairly successful, killing millions. Their loot was often was hidden safely, ‘legally’ in Swiss bank vaults, making its way to private galleries and homes of art dealers and collectors. Much was recovered by the efforts of the MFFA, but much remains unaccounted for.

Occasionally one of these pieces of art is discovered at an auction or in a collection—often obtained unaware of the history of the piece, stolen from the rightful owners. Efforts are made to return such pieces of art, of property, to the rightful owners—if still living—or to their heirs. Most people see this as just, even if the modern day owners were unaware that the art was stolen as part of a war crime.

Intil quite recently, it was common practice for museums and historians and governments and private collectors to take as souvenirs pieces of art and artifacts belonging to subjugated peoples or cultures from hundreds of years ago.

Today, the thinking is that there could be no be no right to take such pieces of art and artifacts integral to the original owners and the return of such stolen pieces are being returned to their homelands, at least in some cases.

It is rare that the present day owner is thought to have stolen the art themselves. The modern art collector did not throw the original owner into a death camp or destroy important historical sites to plunder things they found pretty or interesting. Nonetheless, it is morally wrong and potentially illegal fir them to retain such items in their possession.

The fact that people were murdered or sent to their deaths decades or that palaces and temples were plundered centuries before the current illicit ownership does not make it ok to just keep what was stolen however many years ago. Those who have come by objects which could not rightfully pass to them have an obligation to return the object to the rightful owners who most likely willl be descendents of those whose belongings and perhaps lives were stolen from them

 

[Politesse]

Seriously, where did I say anything about fucking Prussia?

19th century Prussian political history

Here.
Have a nice day.
Tom

That is very obviously a reply to his claim that Prussia's historical annexion of Hanover proves... something?

His post is quoted in the post you are quote-mining, thus necessarily precedent to it.

 

[Metaphor]

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...

This all sounds highly implausible. Only white people have the competence and intelligence and constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation.

Ahh it's the ole, everyone did it so stop complaining stance. That's the verbal equivalent of a crane kick; looks good, but in reality doesn't work.

Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.

The point is not 'stop complaining'--though without a time machine, what people did before you were born is not something that can be changed. The point is 'you're not a special subjugated snowflake, and nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did'.

During WWII, Nazis stole countless pieces of art and jewelry belonging to the Jewish people they tried to obliterate from the earth. They were fairly successful, killing millions. Their loot was often was hidden safely, ‘legally’ in Swiss bank vaults, making its way to private galleries and homes of art dealers and collectors. Much was recovered by the efforts of the MFFA, but much remains unaccounted for.

Occasionally one of these pieces of art is discovered at an auction or in a collection—often obtained unaware of the history of the piece, stolen from the rightful owners. Efforts are made to return such pieces of art, of property, to the rightful owners—if still living—or to their heirs. Most people see this as just, even if the modern day owners were unaware that the art was stolen as part of a war crime.

Intil quite recently, it was common practice for museums and historians and governments and private collectors to take as souvenirs pieces of art and artifacts belonging to subjugated peoples or cultures from hundreds of years ago.

Today, the thinking is that there could be no be no right to take such pieces of art and artifacts integral to the original owners and the return of such stolen pieces are being returned to their homelands, at least in some cases.

It is rare that the present day owner is thought to have stolen the art themselves. The modern art collector did not throw the original owner into a death camp or destroy important historical sites to plunder things they found pretty or interesting. Nonetheless, it is morally wrong and potentially illegal fir them to retain such items in their possession.

The fact that people were murdered or sent to their deaths decades or that palaces and temples were plundered centuries before the current illicit ownership does not make it ok to just keep what was stolen however many years ago. Those who have come by objects which could not rightfully pass to them have an obligation to return the object to the rightful owners who most likely willl be descendents of those whose belongings and perhaps lives were stolen from them

If there are stolen artifacts in my family, I will return them to the rightful owner.

There are not any, however.

(I have a reproduction of Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I in my living room, the original of which was stolen by Nazis. However I'm certain it is not in fact the original, as I do not and did not have a spare $135m lying around).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment. Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

That sounds more like opportunity than genetics to me. And resources.

A lot more people have opportunities than actually take advantage of them. My wife gave three of her relatives the opportunity in the form of green card applications for them. One came for a while and went back, the other two didn't even come when their visa numbers came up. I am not at all surprised at this outcome (and in the case of the ones who didn't come I was almost certain they wouldn't)--none of them have the drive she does. They bemoan obstacles, my wife looks for how to deal with obstacles.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because you have presented no evidence to suggest that genetics is a significant factor differentiating immigrants from the descendants of slaves. What genes are different, and how do the expression of these genetic differences lead to a difference in the socio-economic status of black immigrants from Africa and black Americans who are decended from slaves? What about the conditions in which most black Americans live, and the history of racism and oppression that continues to this day? Are these not significant factors as well? How does one differentiate the effects of genetics from these other factors?

Making assertions is easy. Backing up those assertions with facts and reason is much harder.

The reality is the children of immigrants (from anywhere, not just Africa) on average outperform locals. I am not aware of any studies of whether genetics plays a role but I don't see how such a study could be done. It has been established that socioeconomic status is to some degree genetic, I see no reason this wouldn't apply to immigrants also.

Why is there so much resistance to the idea that genetics plays a role? I feel like I'm dealing with religious dogma here--I'm not saying any race is inferior to any other. I see no reason to believe there's any meaningful racial differences (there are differences at the extremes--race does play an appreciable role in things like top athletes), but it's pretty obvious there are differences within every race. Many physical traits are obviously heritable (you often can see which parent certain body parts take after), why is it blasphemy to think that mental traits aren't?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where do you come up with these theories? Immigrants leave their home country for a variety of reasons which may have little or nothing whatsoever to do with confidence or skills - they may just wish to avoid death.

Note that I am distinguishing those who voluntarily chose to immigrate vs refugees/slaves--the latter groups would not be expected to show any genetic superiority.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you proposing that conquest was only a minor consideration in the determination of land rights prior to the arrival of Europeans? What evidence is there for that hypothesis?

I think it comes down to the colonial era displacements are the only ones that really made the history books. The others are pretty much the realm of the archeologists and lack victims that preserved any real history of what happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment. Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

Why don’t you just flat out say what you really mean: There is/superior race(s) and we know who they are because they are financially advantaged.

Why can't you understand my repeated statements that I do not believe there is any racial pattern to it? I'm talking about selection within a population, not selection between populations!

We have one clear example of it at work: The Ashkenazi Jews. Keep putting them through situations where getting out in time confers a substantial survival advantage and combine that with mostly breeding within their group and it's not surprising they are a better part of a standard deviation above average.

Who did the original immigrants from Asia displace? No one as far as I can tell.

As you wrote, various populations in the Americas behaved much the same as Europeans (and Asians and Africans) did all of those years ago: invasions, wars, enslavement, etc. Although as near as I can tell, no other culture practiced slavery in such abominable ways as was carried out in North America.

That does not mean that it was ok for Europeans to come to the Americas and exterminate the people they found here. It does not mean that it was ok for them to purchase human beings as livestock and use them as such.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that there was more than one wave of immigrants from Asia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because when we went down that road in the early 20th Century, it led us to some pretty fucking dark grounds. Besides, look at the fucking Trump family and tell me that wealth is because of fucking genetics. Inheritance isn't a genetic trait.

You are simply presuming way too damn much based on what is effectively zero information. "They want to immigrant to another country" isn't a data point indicating anything about genetics. It is more indicating that the place they are isn't viewed as good for them as some other place.

Poland. Basically everything that you blame for passing between generations was wiped out by the Russians when they occupied the place. Yet we see basically the same pattern of "inheritance" despite there being nothing to inherit. There must be a major component that is either genetic or from parenting. We also see that when looking at adoption vs genetic parentage that genetics plays a substantial role.

The fact that some people decreed that certain races were inferior doesn't make genetic differences not exist. I see no evidence of any substantial genetic differences between races but it's quite obvious that there are considerable genetic differences within races.

 

[Toni]

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment. Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

Why don’t you just flat out say what you really mean: There is/superior race(s) and we know who they are because they are financially advantaged.

Why can't you understand my repeated statements that I do not believe there is any racial pattern to it? I'm talking about selection within a population, not selection between populations!

We have one clear example of it at work: The Ashkenazi Jews. Keep putting them through situations where getting out in time confers a substantial survival advantage and combine that with mostly breeding within their group and it's not surprising they are a better part of a standard deviation above average.

Who did the original immigrants from Asia displace? No one as far as I can tell.

As you wrote, various populations in the Americas behaved much the same as Europeans (and Asians and Africans) did all of those years ago: invasions, wars, enslavement, etc. Although as near as I can tell, no other culture practiced slavery in such abominable ways as was carried out in North America.

That does not mean that it was ok for Europeans to come to the Americas and exterminate the people they found here. It does not mean that it was ok for them to purchase human beings as livestock and use them as such.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that there was more than one wave of immigrants from Asia.

You seem to be making the opposite e claim you did earlier: Ashkenazi Jews did not necessarily voluntarily immigrate—they often fled fir their lives. Upthread, you make the claim more than once that better people immigrate compared with those who come as refugeees, as the Ashkenazi Jews often did.

Here’s an observation: Groups of people who are allowed to maintain their culture, their language, religion, history, family structure: their way of life— tend to fair much better compared with groups whose families are broken apart, who must give up their language, their culture in order to survive. When these things are forcibly taken from them, often on pain of death, groups begin to fail even though individuals might not because individuals might assimilate sufficiently get along in the new culture and circumstances they find themselves.

Certain Asian cultures which are able to remain somewhat intact: language and at least some traditions are retained: this creates a cohesiveness and a strength that they can rely on.

Not all immigrant groups are so lucky to be able to live in neighborhoods where they are supported by others like them.

 

[Toni]

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment. Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

That sounds more like opportunity than genetics to me. And resources.

A lot more people have opportunities than actually take advantage of them. My wife gave three of her relatives the opportunity in the form of green card applications for them. One came for a while and went back, the other two didn't even come when their visa numbers came up. I am not at all surprised at this outcome (and in the case of the ones who didn't come I was almost certain they wouldn't)--none of them have the drive she does. They bemoan obstacles, my wife looks for how to deal with obstacles.

I understand that most people who immigrate voluntarily have motivation and determination to make a new life for themselves. It does not always work out that way—I’m thinking of two brothers who immigrated together. One was highly intelligent, positive, hard working, with a positive attitude even though America drive him as crazy as he loved America. The other brother? He might have been smart but he out so little effort into…anything that it was impossible to know. I don’t know why he came or if, upon arrival he was so overwhelmed by culture shock that he was unable to pull himself up and make something of himself. He was a serious drag on his brother for as long as I knew them.

I also admire and respect those who immigratecti make a better life for gemsekves or to make the most of opportunities. I know that takes a special kind of person.

How much stringer must one be to immigrate as a refugee? When you know you may never see anyone in your family again? That they might all be killed? When you lose everything? When you have no one to help you?

Those are incredibly strong people. Especially when you consider how frequently they are met with anger, suspicion, or by people ready to exploit them.

Now think about people whose ancestors were enslaved, whose grandparents were intimidated and threatened for wanting opportunities at education, at decent jobs, housing. To vote. Of course now laws do not explicitly forbid those things but they effectively do the same thing in place.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We have one clear example of it at work: The Ashkenazi Jews. Keep putting them through situations where getting out in time confers a substantial survival advantage and combine that with mostly breeding within their group and it's not surprising they are a better part of a standard deviation above average.

Well, clearly the smarter Jews got out of Europe *before* the Holocaust.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, clearly the smarter Jews got out of Europe *before* the Holocaust.

"The Making of the Atomic Bomb" has a section describing how Leo Szilard left Germany the day before the Nazis closed the border to Jews, moved to England, and turned down a job offer in the U.S., saying he'd "stay in England until one year before the war, at which time I would shift my residence to New York City." His estimate of when the war would start came pretty close, too.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Well, clearly the smarter Jews got out of Europe *before* the Holocaust.

"The Making of the Atomic Bomb" has a section describing how Leo Szilard left Germany the day before the Nazis closed the border to Jews, moved to England, and turned down a job offer in the U.S., saying he'd "stay in England until one year before the war, at which time I would shift my residence to New York City." His estimate of when the war would start came pretty close, too.

And if you’ve read that book you’ll be well aware how critical that one day was to the course of history.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have one clear example of it at work: The Ashkenazi Jews. Keep putting them through situations where getting out in time confers a substantial survival advantage and combine that with mostly breeding within their group and it's not surprising they are a better part of a standard deviation above average.

Who did the original immigrants from Asia displace? No one as far as I can tell.

As you wrote, various populations in the Americas behaved much the same as Europeans (and Asians and Africans) did all of those years ago: invasions, wars, enslavement, etc. Although as near as I can tell, no other culture practiced slavery in such abominable ways as was carried out in North America.

That does not mean that it was ok for Europeans to come to the Americas and exterminate the people they found here. It does not mean that it was ok for them to purchase human beings as livestock and use them as such.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that there was more than one wave of immigrants from Asia.

You seem to be making the opposite e claim you did earlier: Ashkenazi Jews did not necessarily voluntarily immigrate—they often fled fir their lives. Upthread, you make the claim more than once that better people immigrate compared with those who come as refugeees, as the Ashkenazi Jews often did.

Here’s an observation: Groups of people who are allowed to maintain their culture, their language, religion, history, family structure: their way of life— tend to fair much better compared with groups whose families are broken apart, who must give up their language, their culture in order to survive. When these things are forcibly taken from them, often on pain of death, groups begin to fail even though individuals might not because individuals might assimilate sufficiently get along in the new culture and circumstances they find themselves.

Certain Asian cultures which are able to remain somewhat intact: language and at least some traditions are retained: this creates a cohesiveness and a strength that they can rely on.

Not all immigrant groups are so lucky to be able to live in neighborhoods where they are supported by others like them.

Try reading what I said and think about the situation.

The movements of the Ashkenazi Jews were voluntary. The survivors are the ones that saw the writing on the wall and chose to get out of dodge.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have one clear example of it at work: The Ashkenazi Jews. Keep putting them through situations where getting out in time confers a substantial survival advantage and combine that with mostly breeding within their group and it's not surprising they are a better part of a standard deviation above average.

Well, clearly the smarter Jews got out of Europe *before* the Holocaust.

I don't think you meant to be serious in saying that but you're correct anyway--it's exactly what I'm talking about. The more capable people are more likely to get out before the slaughter started. It selects for the ability to see that things are falling apart and intelligence is a factor in that.

 

[thebeave]

I'll just leave this bit of irrelevant information here.

(Added audio)

View attachment 41135

I'm not sure exactly what your point is with this, but it sounds like what you're suggesting with this chart is that its OK to racially discriminate against (only?) white people because...unemployment rate? I should double check the Constitution and all the civil rights legislation out there to see if this is a legal and rational reason for racial discrimination, but I'm pretty sure its not.

Earlier this year, in a thread on DEI, you made a lot of statements to the "DEI skeptics" out there. Here is some of what you said then:

From post #13:

I’m not in HR. I’ve been working in Engineering for over 3 decades. (Beyond that I’ve also worked in banking and municipal government.) I didn’t say I was in HR, I said I was a “hiring manager”. Meaning I manage an engineering team, and I hire people. Engineers mostly, but occasionally math people, physics or chemists. And I don’t let HR force me to “check boxes.” I hire based on value to the team.

From post #15:

Experience with these positions for actual college students (including my white son) shows a far more valuable picture. These “non-instructional staff” have been the people who have helped my kids as they navigate classes, class selection, internship pursuit, and connections to the job market. Including for my white son.

What would a white person who is interviewing with you (a hiring manager) for a job at your company think if they knew you had this mocking and disdainful attitude about them,? Do you think they would feel they are getting a fair shot at employment at your company? What would your company management think if they found out about this post of yours, knowing you are responsible for hiring their engineering workforce? And what would your job seeking white son think and say about this?

 

[Bomb#20]

View attachment 41135

I'm not sure exactly what your point is with this, but it sounds like what you're suggesting with this chart is that its OK to racially discriminate against (only?) white people because...unemployment rate? I should double check the Constitution and all the civil rights legislation out there to see if this is a legal and rational reason for racial discrimination, but I'm pretty sure its not.

I'm not sure exactly what her point is either; but her point appears to be that when a white person is denied a job on account of the color of her skin, if she cries "Help, I'm being oppressed" then she's being a whiny little snowflake, because the discrimination didn't oppress her very much, because she still got 95.3% of a job.

 

[laughing dog]

View attachment 41135

I'm not sure exactly what your point is with this, but it sounds like what you're suggesting with this chart is that its OK to racially discriminate against (only?) white people because...unemployment rate? I should double check the Constitution and all the civil rights legislation out there to see if this is a legal and rational reason for racial discrimination, but I'm pretty sure its not.

I'm not sure exactly what her point is either; but her point appears to be that when a white person is denied a job on account of the color of her skin, if she cries "Help, I'm being oppressed" then she's being a whiny little snowflake, because the discrimination didn't oppress her very much, because she still got 95.3% of a job.

These admittedly ignorance driven speculations about a point reveals more about the speculators than about the content of the post in question.

 

[Rhea]

I'll just leave this bit of irrelevant information here.

(Added audio)

View attachment 41135

I'm not sure exactly what your point is with this, but it sounds like what you're suggesting with this chart is that its OK to racially discriminate against (only?) white people because...unemployment rate?

Wut? No, you have missed the point. That is not at all what that post suggests.

It suggests that not everyone who whines about oppression is being oppressed.

I should double check the Constitution and all the civil rights legislation out there to see if this is a legal and rational reason for racial discrimination, but I'm pretty sure its not.

Earlier this year, in a thread on DEI, you made a lot of statements to the "DEI skeptics" out there. Here is some of what you said then:

From post #13:

I’m not in HR. I’ve been working in Engineering for over 3 decades. (Beyond that I’ve also worked in banking and municipal government.) I didn’t say I was in HR, I said I was a “hiring manager”. Meaning I manage an engineering team, and I hire people. Engineers mostly, but occasionally math people, physics or chemists. And I don’t let HR force me to “check boxes.” I hire based on value to the team.

From post #15:

Experience with these positions for actual college students (including my white son) shows a far more valuable picture. These “non-instructional staff” have been the people who have helped my kids as they navigate classes, class selection, internship pursuit, and connections to the job market. Including for my white son.

What would a white person who is interviewing with you (a hiring manager) for a job at your company think if they knew you had this mocking and disdainful attitude about them,?

How did you get “mocking and disdainful” out of “valuable to the team?”
What are you talking about?

Do you think they would feel they are getting a fair shot at employment at your company? What would your company management think if they found out about this post of yours, knowing you are responsible for hiring their engineering workforce?

That I hire people based on their value to the team? Is there a fairer shot? Would my management support that? Wouldn’t you support your hiring managers choosing people based on their value to the team?


Also - are you threatening to doxx me?

And what would your job seeking white son think and say about this?

About the fact that DEI resources at the college were helping him? I expect he’d say, “yeah, they do.”

You post does not make any sense, it’s like you read the words but are answering some strawman that only you can see.