If you oppose affirmative action and reparations, you're racist.

[Metaphor]

At least, according to whackjob Ruby Hamad. From her deep crazy playbook.

...

But newer research indicates that it may not be so simple after all. Rather than intelligent people being less racist, they may, as Salon's Katie McDonough wrote in 2013, just be "better at hiding it."

McDonough was referring to research by then-University of Michigan doctoral student Geoffery Wodtke who, in keeping with previous research linking intelligence in white people with enlightened views on race, found "high-ability whites are less likely to report prejudiced attitudes and more likely to say they support racial integration in principle." So far so good.

However.

Wodtke also discovered that these same "high-ability whites" were "no more likely than lower-ability whites to support open housing laws and are less likely to support school busing and affirmative action programs."

It's an extraordinary discovery. It's one thing for people who don't believe racial discrimination exists, or think blacks are to blame for their own disadvantages, to oppose such policies; it's quite another to oppose solutions for a problem you have just admitted exists.

Ah, no. The 'high ability whites' have not 'admitted' racism exists; they're just less racist according to some criteria.

Also Hamad, you're not going to move the stasis of the argument to 'busing and affirmative action' are proven solutions to the problem.

Nonetheless, there was again no statistical difference when it came to supporting policies that would address discrimination.

There was, for example, "no relationship between respondents' intelligence and their support for affirmative action in employment… which had the support of 12 per cent… of all white participants."

Perhaps more intelligent white people oppose it because they can evaluate reason and evidence and can see the programs are no kind of solution.

What this indicates is, rather than being less racist, "more intelligent members of the dominant group are just better at legitimising and protecting their privileged position than less intelligent members."

Or put it another way, intelligent people are savvy enough to know how not to appear racist.

Notice that opposing affirmative action now makes an opposer racist. (If they're white, obviously).

This is partly because many people still cling to an outdated definition of racism, even though the nature of racism – or at least our understanding of it in 2016 – has changed from one of explicit hatred to one of protecting privilege.

In other words, the 'new racism' is nothing like the 'old racism', but the word has so much purchase on the culture we'll pretend it's the same by using the same word.

Indeed, there appears to be a mental block in many white people when it comes to accepting the existence of white privilege. In the interests of a fairer society, the privileged have to be prepared to give something up. It's a simple fact but one that receives more than its fair share of resistance.

I see. Like, do white people have to give up not being shot by the police?

So why cannot otherwise intelligent people see their own shortcomings when it comes to race? Because it unearths a basic truth that very few white people want to admit: that white people owe a huge debt to people of colour.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But with only 13 per cent of "intelligent" white Americans supporting reparations for blacks to address past injustices, it appears that whites are fully aware that programs designed to overcome racial barriers to success will lead naturally to a loss of their own wealth and status, and they deal with this by claiming such programs discriminate against them. Cue the howls of "reverse racism."

It's plain racism.

The reality, of course, is much less endearing: The west has what it has in large part because it proved to be so adept at depriving everyone else. But, when even "rabid socialist" Bernie Sanders, who favours income redistribution based on social class, is firmly opposed to reparations based on race, it is clear that this conversation needs to be had.

You can have a 'conversation' with the unhinged, but certainly not dialogue.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, that's a pretty dumb analysis by her.

Going to the conclusion "It's one thing for people who don't believe racial discrimination exists, or think blacks are to blame for their own disadvantages, to oppose such policies; it's quite another to oppose solutions for a problem you have just admitted exists" to say that they're hiding that they're secretly racist as opposed to going the conclusion that they just don't think that these are valid solutions to these problems is unwarranted and inane.

You do need to take that with a grain of salt, however, since I am a high-acheiving white and have therefore just deliberately lied about this in order to hide the fact that I'm actually quite racist and don't want those solutions implemented because I want to keep the coloured folk down in order to further the cause of evil.

 

[bigfield]

Thanks for reminding me why I don't read political blogs. Not enough of a care factor to be outraged by Hamad's sanctimonious, pseudo-intellectual ravings.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Thanks for reminding me why I don't read political blogs. Not enough of a care factor to be outraged by Hamad's sanctimonious, pseudo-intellectual ravings.

You're just saying that so that you're not forced into conversations where you'd need to hide how racist you actually are.

 

[Terrell]

I think I agree with Tom Sawyer.

I think it depends on why you hold your particular position either way. If you think that there should be one set of rules for everyone, then you're probably not racist, or sexist. One can simply disagree over whether or not affirmative action is the right way to ensure that there is, in practice, one set of rules for everyone. I think it has to be judged on an individual basis; sometimes you won't have enough information to make a fair judgement in either direction.

If you think that the rules should be tilted to favor one ethnic group over another, regardless of individual merit, then you're probably racist. If you think that the rules should be tilted to favor one gender over the other, regardless of individual merit, then you're probably sexist.

 

[KeepTalking]

Ruby Hamad

Who is this person, and why should we care what she thinks?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think I agree with Tom Sawyer.

I think it depends on why you hold your particular position either way. If you think that there should be one set of rules for everyone, then you're probably not racist, or sexist. One can simply disagree over whether or not affirmative action is the right way to ensure that there is, in practice, one set of rules for everyone. I think it has to be judged on an individual basis; sometimes you won't have enough information to make a fair judgement in either direction.

If you think that the rules should be tilted to favor one ethnic group over another, regardless of individual merit, then you're probably racist. If you think that the rules should be tilted to favor one gender over the other, regardless of individual merit, then you're probably sexist.

Not necessarily. If you think that the odds are stacked against people of a certain race or gender, for whatever reason, and race/gender based rules are required in order to even the playing field then you can be in favour of rules favouring that group because of a lack of racism on your part, rather than because of being racist.

 

[Terrell]

I think I agree with Tom Sawyer.

I think it depends on why you hold your particular position either way. If you think that there should be one set of rules for everyone, then you're probably not racist, or sexist. One can simply disagree over whether or not affirmative action is the right way to ensure that there is, in practice, one set of rules for everyone. I think it has to be judged on an individual basis; sometimes you won't have enough information to make a fair judgement in either direction.

If you think that the rules should be tilted to favor one ethnic group over another, regardless of individual merit, then you're probably racist. If you think that the rules should be tilted to favor one gender over the other, regardless of individual merit, then you're probably sexist.

Not necessarily. If you think that the odds are stacked against people of a certain race or gender, for whatever reason, and race/gender based rules are required in order to even the playing field then you can be in favour of rules favouring that group because of a lack of racism on your part, rather than because of being racist.

I think we're essentially on the same page. I'm probably not articulating it clearly, but I'm trying to say that support or opposition to this policy, in and of itself, doesn't really say whether or not a person is racist (sexist) without knowing the motives behind such a position.

 

[Metaphor]

Ruby Hamad

Who is this person, and why should we care what she thinks?

Loosely speaking, I'd call her a political commentator.

We should care not what she personally thinks but that her opinions represent an increasingly vocal section of the fringe feminist/SJW left.