I wasn't racist before, but I am a little now. I think all this focus on race and gender may have the opposite effect that people want.
I wasn't racist before, but I am a little now. I think all this focus on race and gender may have the opposite effect that people want.
"In Terminator 2, how many people remember that the inventor of Skynet, who was a brilliant engineer and also invented many other important technologies, was a black man? If T2 was made in 2024, this would be the centerpiece of the marketing; in 1991 this was just an innocuous fact."
That said, if you think that the early 90's were some sort of pre race-consciousness society or Miles Dyson just happened to be black as some sort of accident of casting, then you probably just weren't aware of the issue - you weren't "woke" to it, so to speak.
Second of all, what we see now is more like Mao's China. People who disagree with the woke agenda are targetted for harassement and violence. Too many of the woke don't want their detractors simply chastised or fired, they want them dead or exiled.
The big difference between "moral panics" of the past and this stuff is that the so-called victims are the ones moralizing and attacking everyone who disagrees, calling normies "ultra far-right extremists" or whatever scary sounding names they can muster. Am I attacking them by calling them out or moralizing? That's for you to decide. But it doesn't matter. I won't be gaslit into thinking that their hostile actions are simply misunderstood. I see it as a power grab and I'm not having it.
With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon
If you have a bit of damage on your front door, is it better for the person observing you as you walk through the door to point it out (hoping you fix it) or to not point it out (hoping you notice it yourself and fix it, or alternatively that whether you notice or not you choose not to fix it).
I do not think it is subject to debate that our front doors have damage, so the question is how to remove that damage in the short/long term.
It's really missing the forest for the trees.
Or to use your door analogy, it's pointing out the damage to the door, while ignoring the missing window right next to it.
>I think all this focus on race and gender may have the opposite effect that people want.
That's a common critique from reactionaries, never seen much proof from it.
But do they? Adjusting for education and experience? I've yet to see proof of that.
> That's a common critique from reactionaries, never seen much proof from it.
I can attest to it personally. Not proof, but it makes me wonder.
That's largely the systemic problem with joining certain professions. Those are most often the qualities the market seeks, but education and experience are biased towards the wealthy. You need resources to attain them. For historical reasons, non-white people as a group don't have the same kind of wealth.
Financial inequality is a much bigger problem in the US than discrimination.
Let's face it, if the rich list was comprised of mostly black women, we would be bowing down to them and praising their every move. They are marginalized because they, by and large, don't have a good answer to "But what can you do for me?"
You need no proof when you can just dismiss any sort of criticism to the current state of things with a blanket accusation of people being reactionaries.
I'm aware of things I was ignorant of before, like how much crime is commited by people of color.
Now I also have to consider if someone earned their position through merit or if it was the result of DEI. Before it was never a question in my mind.
I think it's childish to assume candidates hired under DEI are less likely to deserve their position than white male candidates. There is no reason to believe that DEI policies require lowering standards other than a belief that white men are categorically more qualified by default. Otherwise, one wouldn't see race, gender and quality as mutually exclusive.
I'm not going to get into a long, drawn out argument over this because I suspect it would be a waste of time and it would ruin my day - you came into this thread virtue signaling your racism after all, so it seems you're not in a mood to have your point of view challenged. But I do think you and the normalized cultural bigotry you're expressing are clear examples of why we cannot afford to "just go back to not seeing those things." You can disagree with the incentives of the politics without embracing prejudice against the people those politics are meant to help.
More like reacting to people annoyingly inserting race and gender to every single discussion, even when otherwise meaningless.
Of course, if they get tired of the incessant political pandering, they can only be reactionaries. That's the only possible explanation.