Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That classroom trying to throw balls of paper into a bin was a pretty good way of simply showing it.

 sebster wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
And... you understand that saying that I'm responsible for other people's actions because I'm white is literally the definition of racism, right? I mean, you could argue that it's good racism, I suppose, but you'd have to be illiterate or stupid to genuinely think that it's not racism to classify someone based on their race.

You're adding 'responsible' in there. No-one else is ascribing personal responsibility to you.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. BeAfraid quite literally said "let's judge people based on race, and it's not racist because I think it's the right thing to do". Maybe it is the right thing to do, maybe it isn't, but it certainly is still racist. If you don't like the way that sounds, then maybe you need to carefully reconsider the worth of taking that approach in lieu of something more noble. I think a lot of political effort is wasted on polarizing, controversial issues like affirmative action that could be spend addressing the underlying problems. I'd bet directing that effort towards overhauling the criminal code, or reworking the welfare system, would go much further towards providing minorities with greater opportunities while not actively discriminating against whatever the dominant group is.

Grey Templar wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Affirmative Action is a different animal compare to racism

As for positive racism
I seriously seriously outright have intense hatred towards those who fall in my "Insurgent" column.

"Insurgent" isn't a race. Thats not racism.

Is it not a class of people?
Its my perception so I am racist towards them. End. Of. Story.
Stop pissing in my corn flakes dammit

At worst, its Classism. Under no definition is it racism.

Grey Templar wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Affirmative Action is a different animal compare to racism

As for positive racism
I seriously seriously outright have intense hatred towards those who fall in my "Insurgent" column.

"Insurgent" isn't a race. Thats not racism.

Is it not a class of people?
Its my perception so I am racist towards them. End. Of. Story.
Stop pissing in my corn flakes dammit

At worst, its Classism. Under no definition is it racism.

Co'tor Shas wrote:Yeah, tho only racism would be if you thought all middle-eastern people were terrorists, or something like that.

Stop ruining my Hate. I thrive on hate.
I am an NCO. I might be misinformed, mislead, working on non updated EO material, mislabel, NCO-ism and all that jazz. First and Foremost I am a NCO. I am always right Stay out my world.
Since my stance is known on my viewpoint of Muslims in general
I am racist towards those who are radical militarized Muslims...........same as Christians......
Why can't everyone be a follower of Bacchus, God of Wine and sex. Where war is conducted by "stamina" and who can be drunk under the table

Why do I think people should just sit down and read freakonomics?

BeAfraid wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.

So... just because I'm white I'm suddenly responsible for the sins of various other white people who I don't know and have largely never met because most of them are long since dead?

Yep.

They don't call it "Structural" for no reason.

It means that just by being white in our society you benefit unfairly from that condition.

You have opportunities that are denied to those who are non-white, just because you are white.

Thus, ALL of society collectively shifts to compensate.

You are a part of ALL whether you wish to be or not.


MB

So I come from a moderately poor family, Apparently I have privilege because my family is white. Even though I am a second generation american? Yep defiantly.

Could someone explain to me why I am privileged because I am white without sounding racist and dumb?

He doesn't care mate, he is judging you because of your skin colour not because of your character. But don't worry, it ain't racist you are white...

Yea sorry, sounds racist still.

Why is it that the people most eager to apologize for racism are also the same ones most eager to claim being a victim?

I must have missed the part where he defended discrimination against minorities. And, while people probably aren't as racist towards him as might be experienced by other ethnic groups, that doesn't mean that when people behave in a racist manner towards him it's suddenly acceptable. If someone punches you in the face for no reason, it isn't acceptable just because they tend to punch other people in the face more. Punching him in the face was still wrong, yet you're proposing it as the solution to other people getting punched in the face. The whole point is so that no one gets punched in the face.

 DarkLink wrote:
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. BeAfraid quite literally said "let's judge people based on race, and it's not racist because I think it's the right thing to do". Maybe it is the right thing to do, maybe it isn't, but it certainly is still racist. If you don't like the way that sounds, then maybe you need to carefully reconsider the worth of taking that approach in lieu of something more noble. I think a lot of political effort is wasted on polarizing, controversial issues like affirmative action that could be spend addressing the underlying problems. I'd bet directing that effort towards overhauling the criminal code, or reworking the welfare system, would go much further towards providing minorities with greater opportunities while not actively discriminating against whatever the dominant group is.

And that's fair enough. I mean I'm not much of a fan of affirmative action, but it's impact is way overblown so ultimately I'd rather just not enter in to that part of the debate.

I was just picking up on a common response to a point made about understanding privilege - people reject it on the grounds that they personally aren't responsible for what happened. And while its true that you and me and lots of other people aren't personally responsible, it also doesn't matter. I mean, you see a baby lying on the highway, you don't start pointing out to people that you aren't going to do anything because you weren't the one that put the baby there, you just go and rescue the baby. Same thing here, not being personally responsible doesn't mean you can't recognise that there is a problem and that maybe you can be part of a solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Why do I think people should just sit down and read freakonomics?

Because you have no idea how mediocre it is.

Wait- Freakonomics is about the economy?! I thought it was about sociology!

 LordofHats wrote:
Wait- Freakonomics is about the economy?! I thought it was about sociology!

I don't think it is. It did point to things though that were correlation studies. (Like most sociology studies)

 LordofHats wrote:
Wait- Freakonomics is about the economy?! I thought it was about sociology!

It's a weird thing. The premise was that some economists like the author are all super rational and detached which gives them incredible insights, and then it sets off telling a bunch of stories, some good and some bad, but with almost no economics in it anywhere. The only quantitative work in the book is some regression analysis, which is hardly unique to economics. The stand out work in the book, on drug dealer culture, was done by a sociologist. The worst element, the only work done by an economist, the co-author, on abortion, was comfortably the weakest element of the book.

But the story of the detached, strangely wise economist was a good one, and so the book sold and the myth grew. It didn't matter that the book didn't really have anything to do with economics, or that it really wasn't that great of a book.

 LordofHats wrote:
Wait- Freakonomics is about the economy?! I thought it was about sociology!

Economics=Sociology, just more granular.

I would've thought the free market advocates would be really into an initiative like this. After all, institutional racism causes the best candidate to not get the job, or the loan, etc. Instead, the selection process is biased towards whoever is whiter.

 Asherian Command wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.

So... just because I'm white I'm suddenly responsible for the sins of various other white people who I don't know and have largely never met because most of them are long since dead?

Yep.

They don't call it "Structural" for no reason.

It means that just by being white in our society you benefit unfairly from that condition.

You have opportunities that are denied to those who are non-white, just because you are white.

Thus, ALL of society collectively shifts to compensate.

You are a part of ALL whether you wish to be or not.


MB

So I come from a moderately poor family, Apparently I have privilege because my family is white. Even though I am a second generation american? Yep defiantly.

Could someone explain to me why I am privileged because I am white without sounding racist and dumb?

I'll do my best not to sound dumb here. If you would like sources for anything I state, please ask. All of these statements are in reation to america, but most also apply to Britain.

White people are less likely to be pulled over, arrested or stop-searched. This creates a confirmation bias whereby more minorities are found to be guilty, and therefore the police are more likely to arrest them etc. This is particularly true of marijuana use, wherein use is roughly equal between whites and blacks, but black people are four times more likely to be arrested for possession.

In a job which requires 'fitting in' and teamwork, the prospective candidate is more likely to be called back/given the job if they are white, mainly because the selection panel is usually predominantly white. Identical CVs with the names changed between black-sounding and white-sounding names are more likely to be accepted if they have a white-sounding name.

If you are male, any aggressive tendencies you have are more likely to be ascribed to your masculinity than your race, whereas for black men this is the other way around. However, male agression is usually seen as more socially acceptable than black agression.

If you are white, you will be shown more houses on average on a house hunt by an estate agent.

In instances where the price of an item is negotiable, or where it is not set before you see it, such as when buying a used car, a black individual will likely be charged more. This may not even be due to outright racism on the part of the previous owner, you are just more likely to be percieved as a friendly guy who deserves a favour.


I am not saying that you as an individual inherit the guilt of slavery etc. You are your own person. Other aspects of your social makeup may mean that you do not have some of these privileges - if you are visibly poor then you may not be percieved as fitting-in in a middle class job environment, for example.

However, simply by being white you recieve a lot of advantages over an otherwise similar black individual, because of the implicit biases towards white people in our societies.

I can also provide sources for any of those things.

We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.

It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).

But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
I can also provide sources for any of those things.

We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.

It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).

But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).

MB

while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....a tiny bordering on insignificant amount, at what point do we stop this form of legalized racism? How many years does it take for this to "level" the playing field?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
I can also provide sources for any of those things.

We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.

It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).

But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).

MB

while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....a tiny bordering on insignificant amount, at what point do we stop this form of legalized racism? How many years does it take for this to "level" the playing field?

Its true of the past and it is still very true today.
It stops when there is a level playing field. When people realise the advantages they get for being white and actively seek to dismantle them.
You could try something better than affirmitive action, if you can think of it. It is a patch, until attitudes can be overhauled at the base level. However, overhauling these attitudes takes time, which is no comfort for the minorities who would not get the same education a white person would in the intervening time.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
I can also provide sources for any of those things.

We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.

It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).

But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).

MB

while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....a tiny bordering on insignificant amount, at what point do we stop this form of legalized racism? How many years does it take for this to "level" the playing field?

At what point will people stop calling it Racism?

When that happens, then it is likely that we will no longer require it.

But until such a time, it will be necessary, as the calling this racism is itself a form of structural racism.

It is complaining that the kids at the back of the class are "Racists" for wishing to be treated more fairly by being given an opportunity to get their wad of paper into the trash can at the front of the class as easily as those at the front row (simply because one is in the front row, yet sucks at being able to get their own wad of paper in the trash can with a clear, unobstructed shot).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
I can also provide sources for any of those things.

We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.

It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).

But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).

MB

while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....a tiny bordering on insignificant amount, at what point do we stop this form of legalized racism? How many years does it take for this to "level" the playing field?

At what point will people stop calling it Racism?

When that happens, then it is likely that we will no longer require it.

But until such a time, it will be necessary, as the calling this racism is itself a form of structural racism.

It is complaining that the kids at the back of the class are "Racists" for wishing to be treated more fairly by being given an opportunity to get their wad of paper into the trash can at the front of the class as easily as those at the front row (simply because one is in the front row, yet sucks at being able to get their own wad of paper in the trash can with a clear, unobstructed shot).

MB

You can say it that but it is not true, im sorry that I recognize ACTUAL racism for what it is. The way to dismantle unfair practices is to make everyone FEEL equal and not force them to be UNEQUAL by the government setting forth standards that actually exacerbates racism as opposed to fighting it.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
I can also provide sources for any of those things.

We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.

It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).

But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).

MB

while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....a tiny bordering on insignificant amount, at what point do we stop this form of legalized racism? How many years does it take for this to "level" the playing field?

At what point will people stop calling it Racism?

When that happens, then it is likely that we will no longer require it.

But until such a time, it will be necessary, as the calling this racism is itself a form of structural racism.

It is complaining that the kids at the back of the class are "Racists" for wishing to be treated more fairly by being given an opportunity to get their wad of paper into the trash can at the front of the class as easily as those at the front row (simply because one is in the front row, yet sucks at being able to get their own wad of paper in the trash can with a clear, unobstructed shot).

MB

You can say it that but it is not true, im sorry that I recognize ACTUAL racism for what it is.

If you try being a little more condescending you might win the argument through walk-over.

 Ghazkuul wrote:


You can say it that but it is not true, im sorry that I recognize ACTUAL racism for what it is. The way to dismantle unfair practices is to make everyone FEEL equal and not force them to be UNEQUAL by the government setting forth standards that actually exacerbates racism as opposed to fighting it.

What are you defining 'ACTUAL' in opposition to? The structural racism is there; it is huge and pervasive, and the priveleges for being white are manifold. But I never see people arguing against affirmitive action (which is trying to counter the structural racism) trying to do anything to counter structural racism.

Just telling institutions not to be racist and then expecting them to do so without putting in place any sanctions or rules isn't going to anything.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


You can say it that but it is not true, im sorry that I recognize ACTUAL racism for what it is. The way to dismantle unfair practices is to make everyone FEEL equal and not force them to be UNEQUAL by the government setting forth standards that actually exacerbates racism as opposed to fighting it.

What are you defining 'ACTUAL' in opposition to? The structural racism is there; it is huge and pervasive, and the priveleges for being white are manifold. But I never see people arguing against affirmitive action (which is trying to counter the structural racism) trying to do anything to counter structural racism.

Just telling institutions not to be racist and then expecting them to do so without putting in place any sanctions or rules isn't going to anything.

well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white. I have seen this several times in my professional life both in the military and in the civilian sector.

"You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.

This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.

That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.

Ouze wrote:
"You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.

This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.

That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.

'
And that boils down to individual racism and not something that can be fixed by the government forcing people to be hired. Discrimination based upon race/ethnicity/color/creed/religion/sexual orientation/gender is wrong, doesn't matter if it is a program set up by the government to help the underprivileged it is just as wrong.

As to another piece,

 Ghazkuul wrote:
while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....

Man, I remember back before Affirmative Action Cured Racism, when banks would run enormous predatory lending schemes, wherein they would steer Black and Latino borrowers towards worse loans then they were qualified?

And by "back before", I mean 2004-2008.

Ouze wrote:
As to another piece,

 Ghazkuul wrote:
while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....

Man, I remember back before Affirmative Action Cured Racism, when banks would run enormous predatory lending schemes, wherein they would steer Black and Latino borrowers towards worse loans then they were qualified?

And by "back before", I mean 2004-2008.

Never said it was cured, i am merely pointing out that affirmative action hasn't and will never work because it boils down to individual racism and not some greater government scheme.

Also terrible example. The banks gave crappy loans to everyone hence the 08 collapse.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


You can say it that but it is not true, im sorry that I recognize ACTUAL racism for what it is. The way to dismantle unfair practices is to make everyone FEEL equal and not force them to be UNEQUAL by the government setting forth standards that actually exacerbates racism as opposed to fighting it.

What are you defining 'ACTUAL' in opposition to? The structural racism is there; it is huge and pervasive, and the priveleges for being white are manifold. But I never see people arguing against affirmitive action (which is trying to counter the structural racism) trying to do anything to counter structural racism.

Just telling institutions not to be racist and then expecting them to do so without putting in place any sanctions or rules isn't going to anything.

well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white. I have seen this several times in my professional life both in the military and in the civilian sector.

This is not according to people just saying 'it is because I'm black' when they didn't get a job.

It is from studies sending out similar CVs but typically black/white names, then measuring the responses.

-http://www.povertyactionlab.org/publication/are-emily-and-greg-more-employable-lakisha-and-jamal-field-experiment-labor-market-discr

Bertrand and Mullainathan found that a white sounding name was worth about 8 extra years' experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Ouze wrote:
"You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.

This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.

That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.

'
And that boils down to individual racism and not something that can be fixed by the government forcing people to be hired. Discrimination based upon race/ethnicity/color/creed/religion/sexual orientation/gender is wrong, doesn't matter if it is a program set up by the government to help the underprivileged it is just as wrong.

Its not 'individual racism' when everywhere does it. Its 'structural racism', because it is pervasive in the structure of our society.

We're talking about just the individual concerning Affirmative Action right? As in gender/racial quota's right?
Contract bids are a whole different animal

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Ouze wrote:
"You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.

This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.

That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.

'
And that boils down to individual racism and not something that can be fixed by the government forcing people to be hired.

My opinion on that statement rhymes with dull hit.

Ouze wrote:
"You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.

This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.

That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.

Being in the military we're more exposed to it. So yes "we know more about it being your not military" does apply.
EO slots
Command Slots
Schools
etc etc etc

Seen and participated in the Contract bidding selection to
Also I'm not "Black" I'm Half Asian

 Jihadin wrote:
We're talking about just the individual concerning Affirmative Action right? As in gender/racial quota's right?
Contract bids are a whole different animal

Affirmative action is not quotas. They are different animals.

Quotas (Saying x% of thing Y must belong to group Z) are bad. Affirmative action (Everything else being equal, let disadvantaged person get it) is not bad.

Say you have a race between two runners. You give one of the runners a 100 pound backpack to carry. The race goes off and the runners tie. Affirmative action says you declare the person carrying the backpack the winner.

I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"