Nope. People rightly reject these "principles" as incorrect and both morally and pragmatically reprehensible.
The question is just if it is reprehensible to do so. Or if there are times when it is more or less reprehensible.
This argument is hilarious but this is not a turn I expected it to take.
The important thing is establishing that one group has too many resources which rightfully belong to some other group. The rest is implementation detail.
I understand the arguments, but I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with the police taking someone's house from them because they're white.
Sounds racist. I’m not comfortable with that.
True like creationism more like.
Here's some other perspectives:
- Things in the past can't be fixed. We can't "fix" past discrimination any more than we can fix 9/11 or retroactively fix the holocaust.
- Are you trying to decrease discrimination or racially biased life outcomes? If you want less discrimination, adding more discrimination is obviously counterproductive. If what you want is more wealthy black people, why don't you say that?
- There's lots of ways to help people of color without discriminating against white people. Like introducing better social support for single parent families, reducing prison sentences for non-violent offenders, etc.
- Having discriminatory hiring quotas misunderstands how wealth creation works. Promoting people in companies based on skin tone or gender instead of their skills makes companies weaker, and in turn rusts the engine of capitalism. That makes everyone more poor.
- Discrimination like this causes new problems. For example, I know several female programmers who worry that they were only hired / promoted as "diversity candidates". That sucks. As a white dude, I know the only thing keeping me employed is my capacity to add value to the business. So in some ways I'm actively supported more because I'm white and male.
- The research shows that diversity of background makes teams stronger, and diversity of values makes teams weaker. Where is this nuance in the political conversation?
There's plenty more ways to think about this issue. Fixing past racism against black people with modern racism against white people is an obviously controversial policy. (This thread alone is proof enough). Shutting that conversation down is censorious and utterly unbecoming of the academy.
You're right -- fix is not the right word. But you can dampen the impact of the event. For example, I think we provided various types of relief to different classes of victims of 9/11.
> - Are you trying to decrease discrimination or racially biased life outcomes? If you want less discrimination, adding more discrimination is obviously counterproductive. If what you want is more wealthy black people, why don't you say that?
I want people to not be impacted by discriminatory practices. The problem is that there are many practices that exist, for which their reduction in the name of this cause would be noted as discriminatory in themselves. At any given point in time you often must choose between which discriminatory practice to continue. For example, giving admissions benefits to legacies. Or tax breaks for estate taxes. Or property tax based funding of schools. Etc...
> - Having discriminatory hiring quotas misunderstands how wealth creation works. Promoting people in companies based on skin tone or gender instead of their skills makes companies weaker, and in turn rusts the engine of capitalism. That makes everyone more poor.
This is an example of a practice that only looks like it helps underreresented minorities, but is actually long-term discriminatory against them. I don't support such policies. In fact as you note, this actually helps you as a white male even more -- and I actually do believe this.
> - There's lots of ways to help people of color without discriminating against white people. Like introducing better social support for single parent families, reducing prison sentences for non-violent offenders, etc.
This is where it gets interesting and where anti-racism comes into play. There are things that can reduce the gap, and based on anti-racism principles these policies are indeed anti-racist, and discriminatory against whites. Again, it's about being results driven and not intent driven. These practices can reduce discrimination aginst minorities in outcomes -- but the mere fact of doing so increases discrimination against whites in outcome (at least relatively so). I don't think you can do one w/o the other. This is why the only way to counter past discrimination is future discrimination, even if not intended to discriminate.
And what anti-racism asks is to look at all policies through this lens. As I noted in another thread, unfortunately, this tenant of anti-racism itself is racist (usings its own definition). Not because of "reverse-racism", but simply because once things are cast as beneficial to minority groups, their support amongst the general population reduces. In essence the most effective way to reduce discrimination is to discriminate, but w/o intent.
I don’t think the best policies are racist. Providing more financial support for single parent households helps poor, struggling single parents of every race. It doesn’t discriminate.
And nor should it - poor white children deserve support just as much as poor black children do. No child deserves to be homeless.
2) Evolution was not blindly accepted as "truth" the way you seem to expect this so-called "principle" to be accepted simply on your say-so (or prophet Kendi's?). Quite the contrary, it was not accepted at all and evidence had to provided. Lots and lots of evidence. Overwhelming evidence. And it is not accepted as truth by faith now either.
3) The mere claim "you can model [this] quite nicely mathematically" is not evidence for the claim. It is only evidence for you making that claim.
4) Even an actual mathematical model, should one actually be presented rather than just claimed, is not evidence for the claim. There are infinite mathematical models that are consistent with themselves yet inconsistent with the real world.
5) Yet, there are mountains of evidence that identity politics lead to bad outcomes.
6) And yes, racism (which this so-called "anti-racism" clearly is) is clearly reprehensible. This is something we fortunately figured out a while ago, and the fact that we figured it out was a major step up in our societal evolution. Quite frankly I am shocked and dismayed that we are even having a discussion about this. No. NO. Doing away with this nonsense was a major achievement for humanity, we can't give it up this easily.
6) Also: two wrongs never make a right.
Identity politics does lead to bad outcomes, yet here we are. Unfortunately we've gotten ourselves to the point that now acting like there are no identities is just another form of identity politics. E.g., saying "lets stop talking about gender -- we have male and female and lets just stop there and move on" seems less appealing to those that feel currently disenfranchised by the status quo.
On 6, anti-racism is racist, but not for the reason that most people assume. It is because white people tend to double down when confronted with anti-racist data. For example, when whites are told that the legal system is unjust to blacks, they tend to support it more. By anti-racisms very definition of being strictly results, and not intent, oriented -- it itself is racist.
On your second 6 -- the second wrong can dampen the impact of the first wrong. I also notice that the beneficiaries of the first wrong, do love this quote. A tad convenient?
Hmm...
> most people find it obviously true
Reminds me of the rental manager at my London flat justifying a raise in my rent with "well, rents are rising". When I confronted him with his own organisation's web site, which unambiguously said that rents were flat or falling, he countered with "Statistics aside, rents are rising".
But I see the problem. Previously you claimed that these things actually were true. That people may believe they are "obviously" true is an entirely different matter, and probably the crux of the problem.
Because people believe in false things as "obviously true" all the time. For example, people used to believe that the sun obviously revolves around the earth, and many still do (and our language certainly still does: sunrise, sunset etc.)
And these things are just as false.
> that now acting like there are no identities is just another form of identity politics.
No it's not, and that's also a false dichotomy. Repudiating identity politics does not require claiming that (or acting like) there are no identities. But group identities don't define us, and certainly not to the exclusion of everything else. I am an individual first, and a member of various groups second. This isn't hard.
> anti-racism is racist
Glad we agree.
> It is because white people tend to double down when confronted with anti-racist data.
That's both untrue and also even if it were true it would not mean that "anti-racism" is racist. "Anti-racism" is racist all by itself without any external help required.
> when whites are told that the legal system is unjust to blacks, they tend to support it more.
This is not true.
However, speaking of doubling down on the false (and inconsistent) things people believe: the same people who believe that blacks are discriminated against, and use the legal system bias to justify their belief, also fervently believe that males are privileged. Yet the bias against males in the criminal justice system has been shown to be 6x larger than the bias against blacks. When confronted with these facts, do they ever double down!
But thanks for clarifying that what you are talking about is the not actual facts, but all the various false beliefs that people in fact do have.
My experience has been that it is better to base policy based on actual facts, not on things that feel truthy, though of course policy based on the latter is easier to sell.
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5978551/study-racism-criminal-j...
I know it doesn’t sell well, but most whites do, at some level, prefer blacks not to do well. Not because they necessarily hate blacks, but in aggregate it means they’ll do less well (in aggregate).
So you talk about facts, but the data shows that whites will choose to enact policy they think hurts blacks. Those are the facts.
No there's not. And you're perfect at the old Russian tactic of "accuse the other side of the thing that you are doing".
You've been proven wrong at just about every turn, but you can't admit it, and then you ... drumroll ... double down.
And if it's Vox, it is almost certainly misrepresented. Which, drumroll, it is. From the original study:
"We found that exposing people to extreme racial disparities in the prison population heightened their fear of crime ..."
So it wasn't racism. It was fear of crime. Doh.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976145403...
And of course the claim that this is "intrinsic" is both unproven and almost certainly false, which you would know if you looked at the actual data.
Which you obviously will not.
'nuff said. Have a good one.
Edit: what’s your point about gender bias? That’s a reasonable point to raise — in a different discussion. Maybe you can next talk about biases due to height and looks too? Also irrelevant.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/677255
Gender bias leads to 60% longer sentences:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002
60% / 10% = 6x.
Edit: the quote is right on. Your statement that it wasn’t racism missed the point of the authors quote. Try again and see if you can see where you missed.
Of course Vox didn't report that.
"According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 39.6% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 29.1%, and "Other" 3.0%".[1]
So 14% of the population, but almost 40% of the homicides[2]. That's a rate almost 3x higher than you would expect from the population numbers. And whites are 61.6% of the population, so their share of homicides is slightly less than 1/2 of the expected rate. If you combine these two figures, you find that blacks have a 6x higher per/capita share of homicide offenders than whites.
Now this is all very unfortunate, problematic etc. But unconsciously associating blackness more strongly with crime than whiteness is not racism, but sound statistical reasoning based on the real world[3]. And humans are generally very good natural unconscious statisticians, particularly when it comes to assessing personal danger.
And please note that I am not in any way claiming that this association is "intrinsic" or that it is fair, or saying anything about the causes of the disparity in crime rates whatsoever[4]. I am just showing the unambiguous fact that the association is based on reality.
Also note that even if, in spite of the facts, you still hold that associating blackness with crime is solely or primarily due to racism, it would still not support your original assertion that "For example, when whites are told that the legal system is unjust to blacks, they tend to support it more." and certainly not your assertion that "most whites do, at some level, prefer blacks not to do well." That's just complete BS you made up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_S...
[2] Homicides tend to be a good indicator because they are fairly unambiguous (there's a dead person) and also tend to have less chance of inconsistent investigation than other crimes.
[3] Note that this only applies to such unconscious associations as was the case here. It does not justify other sorts of inferences, particularly on an individual level.
[4] Except that, particularly for homicides, it isn't the result of unfair policing practices in any way that comes close to explaining the actual disparity, see [2] as well as the research on racial disparities in the criminal justice system, which came to more a 10% divergence, so nowhere near the 6x difference we see here.
it's not the result of discrimination that's immoral, it's the discrimination
the "fix" is to stop discriminating