Structural/systemic racism poll

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sorry, all those defending this upcoming vote based on an absurd belief that affirmative action and discrimination are somehow different ... they aren't different.

So any article that is praising this as the return of affirmative action the way the LA Times does is praising this as the return of race based discrimination.

I don't need a third attempt. The LA Times said exactly what I said, but phrased it as a positive instead of a negative.

The belief that it is a good thing if you call it Affirmative Action instead of Race Based Discrimination, that is also the belief that if you polish it enough it becomes possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sorry, all those defending this upcoming vote based on an absurd belief that affirmative action and discrimination are somehow different ... they aren't different.

I think you're right. They aren't different. They're the same.

I don't need a third attempt.

I think you do, but never mind. Let's stick to what we agree about. AA and discrimination aren't different. They're the same. All forms of discrimination based on skin colour are fundamentally the same.

 

[Rhea]

Note that sometimes the “structural racism” is not the legal/administrative system that does racism, it is the legal/administrative system that permits it. That fails to stop it. That provides no recourse to prevent it.

The way to solve past racism is with new racism.

That’s an interesting way to frame it. That identifying who is subjected to racism and then passing laws to prevent it - equals racism to you?

The do say that when you have been privileged all your life, equality feels like oppression.

But it’s hard to support your claim that working to stop racism _IS_ racism.
Impossible to support it, actually.

 

[Rhea]

Sorry, all those defending this upcoming vote based on an absurd belief that affirmative action and discrimination are somehow different ... they aren't different.

We realize that they are not different to you. You’ve made it clear that you believe any efforts to achieve equality means that the previously oppressed group gets to use “passing gear” for a bit to catch up, and all you hear is “passing gear!” And you lose your shit because you think it means they’re going to pass you.

I’ve read a lot about how the reaction of the fragile right is based on their profound fear that when the oppressed group is no longer oppressed, they’ll treat you the way your treated them, and you recognize that as intolerable, so it scares the shit out of you that they might become not-oppressed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sorry, all those defending this upcoming vote based on an absurd belief that affirmative action and discrimination are somehow different ... they aren't different.

We realize that they are not different to you. You’ve made it clear that you believe any efforts to achieve equality means that the previously oppressed group gets to use “passing gear” for a bit to catch up, and all you hear is “passing gear!” And you lose your shit because you think it means they’re going to pass you.

I’ve read a lot about how the reaction of the fragile right is based on their profound fear that when the oppressed group is no longer oppressed, they’ll treat you the way your treated them, and you recognize that as intolerable, so it scares the shit out of you that they might become not-oppressed.

To be fair, there will always be a faction in any group that is tribalistic and believes in tribal exceptionalism. Where this fails is that the allies on the left of equality will not stand with tribal exceotionalists of any kind, and minorities will not have the plurality to "reverse the tables".

The only context this is possible is when there is a minority rule situation going on, and the majority getting out from under their chains have no check against their exceptionalism. The correction and rebalancing in such situations of unrest will take much longer to resolve, which is one of the reasons minority rule is so exceptionally bad.

 

[J842P]

Sorry, all those defending this upcoming vote based on an absurd belief that affirmative action and discrimination are somehow different ... they aren't different.

We realize that they are not different to you. You’ve made it clear that you believe any efforts to achieve equality means that the previously oppressed group gets to use “passing gear” for a bit to catch up, and all you hear is “passing gear!” And you lose your shit because you think it means they’re going to pass you.

I’ve read a lot about how the reaction of the fragile right is based on their profound fear that when the oppressed group is no longer oppressed, they’ll treat you the way your treated them, and you recognize that as intolerable, so it scares the shit out of you that they might become not-oppressed.

Rhea, let it sink in for a moment that Jason is a person of color who is on the benefiting end of the racist affirmative action policies, and you, a white person, are telling them that they only oppose it because they are afraid of minorities.

Seriously.


Indeed, I'll note, on this board it is frequently the people who benefit from affirmative action arguing against white people who support racial discrimination against other groups.

It is seriously gross when people try to use people like me to justify why Asian Americans should be institutionally oppressed. And the reasoning, when pushed, basically comes down to "well, there are too many Asians in college!". Human beings aren't extras in some cosmic United Colors of Benetton ad you are trying to create to assuage your white guilt. These arguments are dehumanizing, and racist.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

We realize that they are not different to you. You’ve made it clear that you believe any efforts to achieve equality means that the previously oppressed group gets to use “passing gear” for a bit to catch up, and all you hear is “passing gear!” And you lose your shit because you think it means they’re going to pass you.

Going to pass me? You serious?

If I hadn't moved out of California back in March, these programs would directly "benefit" me. Except they actually wouldn't because I prefer to earn my own way instead of being given race based shortcuts by a bunch of self-hating racists.

Since racism is judging people based on their race, I recognize this as racism even though this form of racism that is being proposed in California would directly "benefit" me. It is still racism even so.

Maybe you've revoked my race card because I don't vote according to how Democrats say my skin color should vote.

Wait ... you saw my positions, said I can't be brown ... that means you are judging brown people by the color of their skin ...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Rhea, let it sink in for a moment that Jason is a person of color who is on the benefiting end of the racist affirmative action policies, and you, a white person, are telling them that they only oppose it because they are afraid of minorities.

Seriously.


Indeed, I'll note, on this board it is frequently the people who benefit from affirmative action arguing against white people who support racial discrimination against other groups.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!

I'm tired of white progressives silencing minorities with "by the power of white woman I am offended on your behalf."

 

[Emily Lake]

Let me get my soap box...

As a principle, I oppose Affirmative Action because it focuses very clearly on race. As a tactic, I support Affirmative Action, because it addresses an existing societal inequity in opportunity. It's one thing to say, and even to believe, that people of all colors and creeds have the potential to be excellent racquetball players; It's difficult to demonstrate the truth of that statement if most people of other colors or creeds aren't allowed in the racquetball club.

A large part of how AA works is through the sentinel effect: if people are aware that someone else is watching and judging their behavior, they tend to act differently. AA, at it's core, says that employees should broadly reflect the demographic makeup of the area in which the employer operates. It's doesn't dictate that a company must hire minorities or women. Rather, it stipulates that if a company has a demographic composition that is very different from the population at large, they should be able to explain and defend that difference.

Does that policy sometimes result in a slightly less qualified minority applicant being hired in preference to a slightly more qualified white applicant? Yes. Sometimes it does. More often, however, it allows an equal or better minority applicant to gain a position over an equal or lesser majority applicant.

For years, society has said that all children get one cookie a day, because all children are equally deserving of cookies. And a large portion of society believes that all the children are getting one cookie a day. When we look a little closer, however, we see that all of the right-handed children are consistently getting first choice of he cookies, and they're taking the largest chocolate chip cookies and brand name Oreos. The left handed children are getting cookies, technically... but they're getting the broken left-over half of a chocolate chip cookie and the generic "artificially chocolate-ish flavored sandwich cookie". Affirmative Action essentially says "Hey, right handed and left handed children should have roughly the same distribution of big cholocalte chip cookies and brand name Oreos among them... and if they don't you should be able to explain why they don't in a way that makes it clear you're not discriminating against left-handed kids."

If an employer has a workforce that is not representative of the population, they're not immediately considered to be discriminatory. If they can show that the applicants weren't representative, that's acceptable. They can even demonstrate that the minority applicants were materially less qualified for the positions... but they are expected to be able to show that as objectively true.

Ideally, AA shouldn't be needed. Every child should have equitable access to cookies, and there shouldn't be any residual discrimination. Unfortunately, there is. There's a substantial amount of evidence that indicates that there is racial bias involved at the very start, when employers are reviewing applications and resumes. All else being literally equal, people with "black sounding" names are less likely to be contacted for phone screenings or interviews than people with "white sounding" names. Once they make it to the interview level, the hiring rates are not as disparate... but to circle back to the first bad analogy, they're not even being allowed in the clubhouse to see whether or not they play racquetball well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For years, society has said that all children get one cookie a day, because all children are equally deserving of cookies. And a large portion of society believes that all the children are getting one cookie a day. When we look a little closer, however, we see that all of the right-handed children are consistently getting first choice of he cookies, and they're taking the largest chocolate chip cookies and brand name Oreos. The left handed children are getting cookies, technically... but they're getting the broken left-over half of a chocolate chip cookie and the generic "artificially chocolate-ish flavored sandwich cookie". Affirmative Action essentially says "Hey, right handed and left handed children should have roughly the same distribution of big cholocalte chip cookies and brand name Oreos among them... and if they don't you should be able to explain why they don't in a way that makes it clear you're not discriminating against left-handed kids."

In the old days this certainly was the case. However, these days is it because the right-handed kids get first choice, or because the left-handed ones are breaking theirs?

The problem is by far the biggest factor in school quality is the quality of the students that attend the school. Private schools work because they act as a sorting mechanism--taking only the good students. It's not that the teaching is superior (often it's inferior), it's that they don't let the problems in the door and get rid of the troublemakers.

 

[Emily Lake]

Loren: Black kids are just violent troublemakers by nature, that's all...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren: Black kids are just violent troublemakers by nature, that's all...

Black kids Inner city kids with parents who don't care

 

[Rhea]

We realize that they are not different to you. You’ve made it clear that you believe any efforts to achieve equality means that the previously oppressed group gets to use “passing gear” for a bit to catch up, and all you hear is “passing gear!” And you lose your shit because you think it means they’re going to pass you.

Going to pass me? You serious?

If I hadn't moved out of California back in March, these programs would directly "benefit" me. Except they actually wouldn't because I prefer to earn my own way instead of being given race based shortcuts by a bunch of self-hating racists.

Since racism is judging people based on their race, I recognize this as racism even though this form of racism that is being proposed in California would directly "benefit" me. It is still racism even so.

Maybe you've revoked my race card because I don't vote according to how Democrats say my skin color should vote.

Wait ... you saw my positions, said I can't be brown ... that means you are judging brown people by the color of their skin ...

First up - my apology. I am sorry for making a claim that your position can’t be held by a person of color. That is a blatant stereotype and unwarranted. And untrue. I am better served by remembering that just because a person is against Affirmative Action, it does not mean they are white. Additionally, my statement became an ad hominem and failed to address the argument. I apologize for that as well. If I can’t refute the argument on it’s own merit, I have to admit that my stance is unsupported, rather than attacking your person.

So let me step back and address the argument as I should have done without stereotyping or ad homs in the first place. I’ll do that in a subsequent post. This one is just an apology.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, let it sink in for a moment that Jason is a person of color who is on the benefiting end of the racist affirmative action policies, and you, a white person, are telling them that they only oppose it because they are afraid of minorities.

Seriously.


Indeed, I'll note, on this board it is frequently the people who benefit from affirmative action arguing against white people who support racial discrimination against other groups.

It is seriously gross when people try to use people like me to justify why Asian Americans should be institutionally oppressed. And the reasoning, when pushed, basically comes down to "well, there are too many Asians in college!". Human beings aren't extras in some cosmic United Colors of Benetton ad you are trying to create to assuage your white guilt. These arguments are dehumanizing, and racist.

J842P, my apologies to you as well. I regret the offense and I’m sorry for allowing myself to go in that direction at your expense.

 

[Rhea]

As a principle, I oppose Affirmative Action because it focuses very clearly on race. As a tactic, I support Affirmative Action, because it addresses an existing societal inequity in opportunity. [...]

A large part of how AA works is through the sentinel effect: if people are aware that someone else is watching and judging their behavior, they tend to act differently. AA, at it's core, says that employees should broadly reflect the demographic makeup of the area in which the employer operates. It's doesn't dictate that a company must hire minorities or women. Rather, it stipulates that if a company has a demographic composition that is very different from the population at large, they should be able to explain and defend that difference.
[...]
If an employer has a workforce that is not representative of the population, they're not immediately considered to be discriminatory. If they can show that the applicants weren't representative, that's acceptable. They can even demonstrate that the minority applicants were materially less qualified for the positions... but they are expected to be able to show that as objectively true.

Ideally, AA shouldn't be needed. Every child should have equitable access to cookies, and there shouldn't be any residual discrimination. Unfortunately, there is. [...]

This is what I am meaning when I support AA. And this is why I get activated when people claim it’s not needed. I have watched this happen.. Because I am white, they assume I am on their side (ironic given my assumption earlier that was wrong and insulting, but the world is full of irony, yes?).

And so because I am white, they do not hide this from me. I have watched this happen.. I have heard the words the (white) hiring managers use. I have heard the words they use later, when people are watching.

Affirmative action gets around those people. Not perfectly, not always, not without acknowleding and focusing on race, and not, in my opinion, by giving minority applicants something they didn’t earn, except in the cases of the worst racism, where the hiring manager says, “I don’t give a shit which one you hire, they all are shit, just take the first one you see and let’s get this over with.” Which results in an unfit hire and makes the racist think he was right all along, that all black or hispanic applicants are inherently unqualified.

I am for AA because it holds companies to account for failing to hire according to merit, and the ones I’ve known, would never ever hire a person who is black or hispanic wihtout a law forcing them to. It is not perfect, but it is far better than no scrutiny at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And so because I am white, they do not hide this from me. I have watched this happen.. I have heard the words the (white) hiring managers use. I have heard the words they use later, when people are watching.

Affirmative action gets around those people. Not perfectly, not always, not without acknowleding and focusing on race, and not, in my opinion, by giving minority applicants something they didn’t earn, except in the cases of the worst racism, where the hiring manager says, “I don’t give a shit which one you hire, they all are shit, just take the first one you see and let’s get this over with.” Which results in an unfit hire and makes the racist think he was right all along, that all black or hispanic applicants are inherently unqualified.

I am for AA because it holds companies to account for failing to hire according to merit, and the ones I’ve known, would never ever hire a person who is black or hispanic wihtout a law forcing them to. It is not perfect, but it is far better than no scrutiny at all.

You have heard the words that some hiring managers use.

Yes, there are KKK types out there. However, so long as there aren't too many of them the harm they do is very minimal, while AA causes substantial harm regardless of the size of the problem. You seem to be unable to realize the costs of your "solution".

 

[ruby sparks]

I do think it's false to say that AA causes substantial harm. I think more of the harm is the (somewhat unnecessary) backlash to it, which I think involves overstating the problems with it.

It's not that much to do, guys, all things considered. And a LOT of shit went down, and not even that long ago, that shaped the existing inequalities. Everyone knows that. And everyone also knows there are legacy effects. It's not even as if the modern version of strong AA is all that strong, really. It's been weakened considerably since Reagan.

 

[Jarhyn]

I do think it's false to say that AA causes substantial harm. I think more of the harm is the (somewhat unnecessary) backlash to it, which I think involves overstating the problems with it.

It's not that much to do, guys. And a LOT of shit went down, and not even that long ago, that shaped the existing inequalities. Everyone knows that. It's not even as if the modern version of strong AA is all that strong, really. It's been weakened considerably since Reagan.

"Substantial harm" from AA. I have yet to see it. Competent people still get hired. The competent people selected are, as a result of the program, more often minorities.

Maybe all the whiners out there are just pissed because nobody is calling them back? Maybe get good at your jobs and you won't have that problem.

 

[Emily Lake]

However, so long as there aren't too many of them the harm they do is very minimal, while AA causes substantial harm regardless of the size of the problem. You seem to be unable to realize the costs of your "solution".

What harm are you talking about? I can see clear harm for the KKK managers... I'm really not sure what great harm there is with AA being in place.

 

[Jarhyn]

However, so long as there aren't too many of them the harm they do is very minimal, while AA causes substantial harm regardless of the size of the problem. You seem to be unable to realize the costs of your "solution".

What harm are you talking about? I can see clear harm for the KKK managers... I'm really not sure what great harm there is with AA being in place.

Pure speculation that if he wants to correct, he certainly can otherwise I'm totally calling this "cannon":

The harm is that once upon a time he didn't get a job that he really wanted and a black person did so obviously a black person got hired because they were black rather than because they were competent.

Edit: in other news, I just got a new job! I am now a senior position who will be in charge of hiring. And I absolutely support AA: presented with two competent seeming choices I WILL choose the person of color. Just to make LP pop a gasket.