"PRRI also asked respondents whether they believed that, "It always makes the country better when all Americans speak up and protest unfair treatment by government." Then, it asked the same question, but substituted "Black Americans" for "all Americans." Democrats made no distinction between the two questions: 71 percent answered Yes to both. Among Republicans, however, 49 percent believed it made the country better when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair governmental treatment, but just 24 percent believed it when Black Americans spoke up and protested. Among Republicans whose most trusted news source is Fox News, the gap was 47 percent Yes for all Americans, and a bare 10 percent for Blacks."
From this, Harold Meyerson conclude that Republicans are very racist.
I can't recall a time when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair government treatment. So that question is hypothothetical. Sometimes you might think a protest could be a good idea, but when it happens you are surprised to find it's not just someone speaking up, it's looting, vandalism, violence, cops getting shot in the face, police using teargas, etc. Oh yes, and spreading of viruses.
The questions are not the same as 'all Americans should have the same rights to protest and speak out, agree or disagree.'
https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/how-racist-are-republicans-very/
I just feel like this thread is just asking for trouble. It's just going to attract polarized responses, isn't it? And some reasonable calm people are going to post, but also some inflammatory people, and then others are going to take offense (probably sometimes justifiably), and the whole thing is going to be a train wreck. Is there anyone out there who doesn't already have an opinion? A strong opinion? And if there is, why don't they go read some thoughtful writings on the topic, rather than a list of opinions of various degrees of fury, as this one will soon turn into? Has anyone ever been persuaded by people throwing comments around in an anonymous online discussion? The research I've seen is that it just makes people more polarized and determined in their original opinions, and makes them detest the other side a little bit more. Can't we go do something useful instead?
I guess we all have some threshold for when controversy and clash make us uncomfortable. I respect those concerns.
where my ambivalence comes in is where the current climate requires us to accept ideas such as 'since is violence.' No one on the forum has been saying this, but neither has anyone pushed back against it. If silence is violence then what is the penalty to paid for not being silent and supplying a view of things that is unwelcome?
I honestly think the variety of responses here is interesting. I learn from it. If one were to post what I posted on a conservative forum it would be closer to an echo chamber. You would have loony right ideas posted and people who don't agree just ignoring them.
When people speak their minds candidly, clarity might be coming.
The current presidential election has been billed as a referendum on Trump and his anti-social personality. I don't think so. The two candidates have identified some clear differences in policy and priorities.
Coleman Hughes was asked recently how he could speak to Congress against reparations for slavery. It think his feeling was, how could he not?
If this thread isn't good idea for the community, it can be deleted. i would accept it.
Quote from: Hegemony on October 26, 2020, 02:52:16 AM
I just feel like this thread is just asking for trouble. It's just going to attract polarized responses, isn't it? And some reasonable calm people are going to post, but also some inflammatory people, and then others are going to take offense (probably sometimes justifiably), and the whole thing is going to be a train wreck. Is there anyone out there who doesn't already have an opinion? A strong opinion? And if there is, why don't they go read some thoughtful writings on the topic, rather than a list of opinions of various degrees of fury, as this one will soon turn into? Has anyone ever been persuaded by people throwing comments around in an anonymous online discussion? The research I've seen is that it just makes people more polarized and determined in their original opinions, and makes them detest the other side a little bit more. Can't we go do something useful instead?
People who are members of the large majority often are uncomfortable when members of the much less visible viewpoints really want to have discussions and push hard on the accepted viewpoints that are opinion, not fact.
No, random discussion doesn't tend to change anyone's mind. However, for those who seldom see their views represented in the community discourse, finding out they are not alone is very reassuring.
If one truly supports diversity, then having the uncomfortable, and even heated, discussions is worth having so that everyone has the opportunity to be heard.
If you don't wish to participate, then that is your option.
Shutting down the discussion because you don't want to watch it is not your option.
Very problematic response. If you say, "Shutting down the discussion because you don't want to watch it is not your option," that is an accusation. And when making an accusation, you need to show, quite explicitly, where and how the accused proposed shutting down the thread. One can interpret the hypothetical question "Can't we go do something useful instead" a number of ways, I suppose, but a shut down isn't one of them. A shut down is a specific and physical closing of a thread or forum. That didn't happen.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 26, 2020, 02:02:18 AM
"PRRI also asked respondents whether they believed that, "It always makes the country better when all Americans speak up and protest unfair treatment by government." Then, it asked the same question, but substituted "Black Americans" for "all Americans." Democrats made no distinction between the two questions: 71 percent answered Yes to both. Among Republicans, however, 49 percent believed it made the country better when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair governmental treatment, but just 24 percent believed it when Black Americans spoke up and protested. Among Republicans whose most trusted news source is Fox News, the gap was 47 percent Yes for all Americans, and a bare 10 percent for Blacks."
From this, Harold Meyerson conclude that Republicans are very racist.
I can't recall a time when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair government treatment. So that question is hypothothetical. Sometimes you might think a protest could be a good idea, but when it happens you are surprised to find it's not just someone speaking up, it's looting, vandalism, violence, cops getting shot in the face, police using teargas, etc. Oh yes, and spreading of viruses.
The questions are not the same as 'all Americans should have the same rights to protest and speak out, agree or disagree.'
https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/how-racist-are-republicans-very/
I will admit that I don't even know what you are saying here. Yes, these are hypothetical questions. And people's varying responses mean that they interpret the hypotheticals differently. I think the country is better off because women and others protested to get women the vote. I think it's better because Blacks and others protested in favor of Civil Rights. I think it's better because LGBTQ+ people and others protested for gay rights. I think it's better because many people protested for worker safety. All of those movements were at times associated with violence, and it's not clear to me that any of those important goals would have been achieved without those protests.
With regards to this particular poll, one possible explanation for the variance is that (many?) Republicans are actively racist and don't think Black people should protest. Another would be that (many?) Republicans don't think the treatment Black people are currently protesting represents "unfair" treatment. Another would be that (many?) Republicans associate Black protests with the recent BLM protests and think that Black protests are inevitably associated with the kind of violence you call out. In my mind, all of these explanations reflect some degree of racism in people who respond differently to the question about whether "all Americans" should protest compared to a question about whether "Black people" should protest.
I also am struck by the differential responses to armed protestors surrounding the Michigan State Capital, vs unarmed protestors in Portland, vs individuals kneeling during the national anthem. And by the baseline difference where Republicans in general don't think protests can make the country better, regardless of who is doing the protesting.
OP's point across a series of threads seems to be that racism is a myth and that actually minorities are violent and are asking for the police brutality that they experience. Amusingly, the evidence s/he offers in this thread is a poll that suggests racism to be endemic among Republicans.
Quote from: onthefringe on October 26, 2020, 10:32:43 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 26, 2020, 02:02:18 AM
"PRRI also asked respondents whether they believed that, "It always makes the country better when all Americans speak up and protest unfair treatment by government." Then, it asked the same question, but substituted "Black Americans" for "all Americans." Democrats made no distinction between the two questions: 71 percent answered Yes to both. Among Republicans, however, 49 percent believed it made the country better when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair governmental treatment, but just 24 percent believed it when Black Americans spoke up and protested. Among Republicans whose most trusted news source is Fox News, the gap was 47 percent Yes for all Americans, and a bare 10 percent for Blacks."
From this, Harold Meyerson conclude that Republicans are very racist.
I can't recall a time when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair government treatment. So that question is hypothothetical. Sometimes you might think a protest could be a good idea, but when it happens you are surprised to find it's not just someone speaking up, it's looting, vandalism, violence, cops getting shot in the face, police using teargas, etc. Oh yes, and spreading of viruses.
The questions are not the same as 'all Americans should have the same rights to protest and speak out, agree or disagree.'
https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/how-racist-are-republicans-very/
I will admit that I don't even know what you are saying here. Yes, these are hypothetical questions. And people's varying responses mean that they interpret the hypotheticals differently. I think the country is better off because women and others protested to get women the vote. I think it's better because Blacks and others protested in favor of Civil Rights. I think it's better because LGBTQ+ people and others protested for gay rights. I think it's better because many people protested for worker safety. All of those movements were at times associated with violence, and it's not clear to me that any of those important goals would have been achieved without those protests.
[snip]
I also am struck by the differential responses to armed protestors surrounding the Michigan State Capital, vs unarmed protestors in Portland, vs individuals kneeling during the national anthem. And by the baseline difference where Republicans in general don't think protests can make the country better, regardless of who is doing the protesting.
I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but just based on your post I suspect (and also hope) that if you were polling Americans to find out who's racist and who's not, you'd do a more credible job of it than Meyerson did.
QuoteWith regards to this particular poll, one possible explanation for the variance is that (many?) Republicans are actively racist and don't think Black people should protest. Another would be that (many?) Republicans don't think the treatment Black people are currently protesting represents "unfair" treatment. Another would be that (many?) Republicans associate Black protests with the recent BLM protests and think that Black protests are inevitably associated with the kind of violence you call out. In my mind, all of these explanations reflect some degree of racism in people who respond differently to the question about whether "all Americans" should protest compared to a question about whether "Black people" should protest.
Another possibility is that these Republicans think Black people have reason to be unhappy about police malpractice, but that that malpractice has been affecting people of all races and so the logical thing to do would be to protest police brutality generally. But many are pointedly passing up that opportunity in favor of racial divisiveness and promoting other agenda that are not entailed in the situation of relations of police and citizens. And giving a microphone to race hustlers like Sharpton. So the harm outweighs the good.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 26, 2020, 11:02:03 AM
OP's point across a series of threads seems to be that racism is a myth and that actually minorities are violent and are asking for the police brutality that they experience. Amusingly, the evidence s/he offers in this thread is a poll that suggests racism to be endemic among Republicans.
I'll be ignoring you. If you want to know why, we can do PM. Trying not to flame the thread too much.
...or they could be Black, Republican small business owners who hope their store won't be damaged and looted.
In the interest of taking this thread in a slightly different direction, I'm kind of curious as to the merit of seeing all of one's apparent opponents as terrible human beings.
For instance, how does it help Democrats to view all Republicans as anti-black racists? How does it help Republicans to view all Democrats as anti-white racists? How does it help feminists to view all men as misogynists? How does it help men to view all feminists as misandrists?
(I'm not saying all members of those groups think those things. I'm wondering what the value is for the ones who do.)
If there is no room for any common ground, then there's no point in any interaction or discussion of any kind. It's hard to see what benefit there is in that. The only thing I can see is the comfort of self-righteousness and the safety of never having to listen to any different points of view in case they might raise some awkward questions.
I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes. (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.) In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.
In short: Democrats are racist. So are Republicans. So are white people. So are "B"lack people. Live with it.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 26, 2020, 11:21:16 AM
Quote from: onthefringe on October 26, 2020, 10:32:43 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 26, 2020, 02:02:18 AM
"PRRI also asked respondents whether they believed that, "It always makes the country better when all Americans speak up and protest unfair treatment by government." Then, it asked the same question, but substituted "Black Americans" for "all Americans." Democrats made no distinction between the two questions: 71 percent answered Yes to both. Among Republicans, however, 49 percent believed it made the country better when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair governmental treatment, but just 24 percent believed it when Black Americans spoke up and protested. Among Republicans whose most trusted news source is Fox News, the gap was 47 percent Yes for all Americans, and a bare 10 percent for Blacks."
From this, Harold Meyerson conclude that Republicans are very racist.
I can't recall a time when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair government treatment. So that question is hypothothetical. Sometimes you might think a protest could be a good idea, but when it happens you are surprised to find it's not just someone speaking up, it's looting, vandalism, violence, cops getting shot in the face, police using teargas, etc. Oh yes, and spreading of viruses.
The questions are not the same as 'all Americans should have the same rights to protest and speak out, agree or disagree.'
https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/how-racist-are-republicans-very/
I will admit that I don't even know what you are saying here. Yes, these are hypothetical questions. And people's varying responses mean that they interpret the hypotheticals differently. I think the country is better off because women and others protested to get women the vote. I think it's better because Blacks and others protested in favor of Civil Rights. I think it's better because LGBTQ+ people and others protested for gay rights. I think it's better because many people protested for worker safety. All of those movements were at times associated with violence, and it's not clear to me that any of those important goals would have been achieved without those protests.
[snip]
I also am struck by the differential responses to armed protestors surrounding the Michigan State Capital, vs unarmed protestors in Portland, vs individuals kneeling during the national anthem. And by the baseline difference where Republicans in general don't think protests can make the country better, regardless of who is doing the protesting.
I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but just based on your post I suspect (and also hope) that if you were polling Americans to find out who's racist and who's not, you'd do a more credible job of it than Meyerson did.
QuoteWith regards to this particular poll, one possible explanation for the variance is that (many?) Republicans are actively racist and don't think Black people should protest. Another would be that (many?) Republicans don't think the treatment Black people are currently protesting represents "unfair" treatment. Another would be that (many?) Republicans associate Black protests with the recent BLM protests and think that Black protests are inevitably associated with the kind of violence you call out. In my mind, all of these explanations reflect some degree of racism in people who respond differently to the question about whether "all Americans" should protest compared to a question about whether "Black people" should protest.
Another possibility is that these Republicans think Black people have reason to be unhappy about police malpractice, but that that malpractice has been affecting people of all races and so the logical thing to do would be to protest police brutality generally. But many are pointedly passing up that opportunity in favor of racial divisiveness and promoting other agenda that are not entailed in the situation of relations of police and citizens. And giving a microphone to race hustlers like Sharpton. So the harm outweighs the good.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 26, 2020, 11:02:03 AM
OP's point across a series of threads seems to be that racism is a myth and that actually minorities are violent and are asking for the police brutality that they experience. Amusingly, the evidence s/he offers in this thread is a poll that suggests racism to be endemic among Republicans.
I'll be ignoring you. If you want to know why, we can do PM. Trying not to flame the thread too much.
I'll try not to cry myself to sleep tonight
Quote from: writingprof on October 26, 2020, 02:43:56 PM
I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes. (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.) In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.
In short: Democrats are racist. So are Republicans. So are white people. So are "B"lack people. Live with it.
False equivalency, but beyond that I'd rather not live in a world where our response to racism is to "live with it"
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2020, 12:54:43 PM
In the interest of taking this thread in a slightly different direction, I'm kind of curious as to the merit of seeing all of one's apparent opponents as terrible human beings.
Theory: laziness has a lot of appeal. It's easier to say 'everyone who voted that way is thinking only about X (horrible, ignorant bias)' than it is to ask people what they are thinking about. Despair follows, which might have an element of self pity or fatalism.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 26, 2020, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: writingprof on October 26, 2020, 02:43:56 PM
I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes. (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.) In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.
In short: Democrats are racist. So are Republicans. So are white people. So are "B"lack people. Live with it.
False equivalency, but beyond that I'd rather not live in a world where our response to racism is to "live with it"
And I'd rather not live in a world in which our response to racism is to come up with elaborate theoretical constructs ("systemic racism!" "white privilege!") that make no difference in the life of any actual human being. I suppose we'll both be committing suicide.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 26, 2020, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: writingprof on October 26, 2020, 02:43:56 PM
I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes. (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.) In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.
In short: Democrats are racist. So are Republicans. So are white people. So are "B"lack people. Live with it.
False equivalency, but beyond that I'd rather not live in a world where our response to racism is to "live with it"
But if you believe all of the "unconscious bias" stuff, then we
have to "live with it" because at the microscopic level it
can't be eradicated!!!!!
The people who believe racism
can be, (and to a great degree, has been), eradicated are the only ones who believe there is an alternative to "living with it".
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 27, 2020, 05:48:21 AM
But if you believe all of the "unconscious bias" stuff, then we have to "live with it" because at the microscopic level it can't be
Here's a partial answer to your question 'what is the value in seeing people who disagree with you as evil enemies.' As Al Gore said, you can't sell people a solution until you've convinced them there's a problem. So, the unconscious bias concern prompts the need for research, publications that produce tenure track promotions and income, diversity training, diversity and inclusion staff, new departments in the university, expensive hired consultants (Robin D'Angelo getting $20,000 for an appearance on a college campus), government bloat. Of course, this being the problem that simultaneously seeks a solution while saying there is none, it's the gift that keeps on giving.
It wouldn't be so hard to take some of these costly effects if the discussion could also include what people can do to improve their lives that doesn't require others to change what they are doing, thinking, or saying.
Quote from: writingprof on October 27, 2020, 04:52:32 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 26, 2020, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: writingprof on October 26, 2020, 02:43:56 PM
I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes. (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.) In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.
In short: Democrats are racist. So are Republicans. So are white people. So are "B"lack people. Live with it.
False equivalency, but beyond that I'd rather not live in a world where our response to racism is to "live with it"
And I'd rather not live in a world in which our response to racism is to come up with elaborate theoretical constructs ("systemic racism!" "white privilege!") that make no difference in the life of any actual human being. I suppose we'll both be committing suicide.
Theoretical constructs don't seem like bad things to me, nor does seeking to understand racism and how it is embedded in our society. Developing such an understanding of racism is a prerequisite to developing strategies to reduce it, which will of course make differences in the lives of many people. For example, if we find that there is a pay gap that exists between blacks and other Americans, even while holding other variables constant, then we will have identified an area where policy or normative interventions can be used to address the problem - for example by encouraging companies to share salary data with the department of labor (just an illustrative idea and example, not necessarily saying this would be the right policy or that the data would identify a relationship between race and salary).
I guess it is easier to throw our hands up and say "everyone is equally guilty so let's not talk or think about it," but that also doesn't seem like it will help make a difference in the life of any actual human being.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 27, 2020, 05:48:21 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 26, 2020, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: writingprof on October 26, 2020, 02:43:56 PM
I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes. (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.) In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.
In short: Democrats are racist. So are Republicans. So are white people. So are "B"lack people. Live with it.
False equivalency, but beyond that I'd rather not live in a world where our response to racism is to "live with it"
But if you believe all of the "unconscious bias" stuff, then we have to "live with it" because at the microscopic level it can't be eradicated!!!!!
The people who believe racism can be, (and to a great degree, has been), eradicated are the only ones who believe there is an alternative to "living with it".
Who says that an unconscious bias is immovable? There are lots of ways to change the way that people think for better (or for worse, unfortunately).
I will add that whether unconscious bias exists should be based on empirical evidence, not belief.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 27, 2020, 08:18:06 AM
For example, if we find that there is a pay gap that exists between blacks and other Americans, even while holding other variables constant, then we will have identified an area where policy or normative interventions can be used to address the problem.
Good luck holding other variables constant. Even the attempt to identify those variables is "racist," as Charles Murray et al. can attest.
Quote from: writingprof on October 27, 2020, 08:37:04 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 27, 2020, 08:18:06 AM
For example, if we find that there is a pay gap that exists between blacks and other Americans, even while holding other variables constant, then we will have identified an area where policy or normative interventions can be used to address the problem.
Good luck holding other variables constant. Even the attempt to identify those variables is "racist," as Charles Murray et al. can attest.
There are literally hundreds of studies in sociology that do just that: develop a theory related to race, analyze data (with control variables included in the model), and publish it in journals and books that can, in turn, inform policy. It isn't impossible for them to do it and, although I suppose you can find an instance or two when it proved controversial, they generally don't face any blowback from their research.
More generally it seems odd that an academic (such as yourself) would reject theory and empirics as ways to develop strategies to address problems.
Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Just use different job titles. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference - that's big $ too) pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 27, 2020, 08:18:06 AM
Who says that an unconscious bias is immovable? There are lots of ways to change the way that people think for better (or for worse, unfortunately).
I will add that whether unconscious bias exists should be based on empirical evidence, not belief.
So does the Implicit Association Test count as "empirical evidence" for unconscious bias? And if so, is there "empirical evidence" that it can be removed by any sort of intervention?
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 08:51:29 AM
Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a two hour course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference) pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.
Actually you cannot always pay people different amounts for identical service, at least not legally in the US (e.g. the Equal Pay Act).
I'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed. However, it must also be said that adjuncts do not have identical job requirements to full time faculty: They don't have to do research, sit on committees, etc.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 27, 2020, 08:54:01 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 27, 2020, 08:18:06 AM
Who says that an unconscious bias is immovable? There are lots of ways to change the way that people think for better (or for worse, unfortunately).
I will add that whether unconscious bias exists should be based on empirical evidence, not belief.
So does the Implicit Association Test count as "empirical evidence" for unconscious bias? And if so, is there "empirical evidence" that it can be removed by any sort of intervention?
I don't have the answer to that specific question. I'd probably look at a review article from the world of race, class, and gender to get a sense of what the well regarded scholarship has to say about this.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 27, 2020, 09:00:46 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 08:51:29 AM
Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a two hour course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference) pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.
Actually you cannot always pay people different amounts for identical service, at least not legally in the US (e.g. the Equal Pay Act).
However, it must also be said that adjuncts do not have identical job requirements to full time faculty: They don't have to do research, sit on committees, etc.
Full time faculty do not have the same requirements as adjunct faculty either. They are not asked to have enough money to live on independent of the teaching job already.
QuoteI'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.
I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 09:06:43 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 27, 2020, 09:00:46 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 08:51:29 AM
Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a two hour course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference) pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.
Actually you cannot always pay people different amounts for identical service, at least not legally in the US (e.g. the Equal Pay Act).
However, it must also be said that adjuncts do not have identical job requirements to full time faculty: They don't have to do research, sit on committees, etc.
Full time faculty do not have the same requirements as adjunct faculty either. They are not asked to have enough money to live on independent of the teaching job already.
QuoteI'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.
I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?
I'd be happy to protest with adjuncts for fairer wages or benefits, although I'm not aware of any such protests or demonstrations at my campus (we have no faculty union; not sure if adjuncts have some stand-alone union).
I've also never written against exploitation of adjunct workers, but it is something to think about post-tenure (pre-tenure, academic freedom doesn't exist in de facto terms). I don't do research on education, however, so it would be pretty left-field and I don't have credibility in that area.
That said, none of your points make race-based discrimination acceptable, either legally or ethically, nor is there a clear parallel between adjunct pay gap and race-based pay gap since, as I noted, the job requirements for adjuncts and full time faculty are not the same.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 27, 2020, 09:22:03 AM
I've also never written against exploitation of adjunct workers, but it is something to think about post-tenure (pre-tenure, academic freedom doesn't exist in de facto terms). I don't do research on education, however, so it would be pretty left-field and I don't have credibility in that area.
Never mind. You won't want to by then anyway. Not that not being in the education or labor field should be an impediment anyway.
By the time you get tenure, you'll be continuing to love the race and gender oh-so-unfair mantras because they make wealth for the tenured community and you'll be on board with adjunctification for the same reason. And you won't even have to say you like it. You can blame it on others.
QuoteThat said, none of your points make race-based discrimination acceptable, either legally or ethically, nor is there a clear parallel between adjunct pay gap and race-based pay gap since, as I noted, the job requirements for adjuncts and full time faculty are not the same.
Speaking of job requirements, I'm expecting as soon as the pandemic is over, for those who still have a job, there will be a new round of required diversity training for us, where we will be pressured to make confessions about white privilege and such to people with 'full time', salaried and permanent benefitted jobs and lavishly paid outside consultants. This makes me snicker.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 09:06:43 AM
Quote
QuoteI'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.
I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?
It's interesting that whenever these issues come up (which, of course, is very often), you default to the assumption that anyone who is FT faculty, tenured or not, does not do these things. Or, at a minimum, you take pains to make statements which imply that that's the "default setting" for FT faculty.
MANY of us actually do all of these things. Some of us have even presented at national conferences on these issues, and engage actively in advocacy. The continual insistence/implication that FT have it so good that they most likely either don't care or actively work against equity for ALL faculty, contingent or not, is really tiresome. Huh -- it's almost as tiresome as someone making judgments or inferences about one's core beliefs on the basis of party identification. Fancy that.
Quote from: rhetoricae on October 27, 2020, 09:59:41 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 09:06:43 AM
Quote
QuoteI'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.
I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?
It's interesting that whenever these issues come up (which, of course, is very often), you default to the assumption that anyone who is FT faculty, tenured or not, does not do these things. Or, at a minimum, you take pains to make statements which imply that that's the "default setting" for FT faculty.
MANY of us actually do all of these things. Some of us have even presented at national conferences on these issues, and engage actively in advocacy. The continual insistence/implication that FT have it so good that they most likely either don't care or actively work against equity for ALL faculty, contingent or not, is really tiresome. Huh -- it's almost as tiresome as someone making judgments or inferences about one's core beliefs on the basis of party identification. Fancy that.
But the advocacy is almost always for a little more shifting of the balance towards more tenure track positions, which, were it to happen, would still involve the segmented workforce. It's never plausibly for all tenure track workforce, since everyone knows that isn't going to happen. In other words, still regular use of leftover-crumbs-from-the-banquet teaching jobs. And it's never for the obvious solution, an overhaul of the system, with everything on the table, including drastic tenure reform, with the approach that all jobs should be real jobs that are plausibly recommendable to students who would get themselves trained to become teachers.
That's why your kind of comment is so awfully tiresome.
And many more claim to are deeply about pay equity, but do not. and with typical preening, ask us to believe they go around all day fretting about wealth disparity among races.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 09:39:07 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 27, 2020, 09:22:03 AM
I've also never written against exploitation of adjunct workers, but it is something to think about post-tenure (pre-tenure, academic freedom doesn't exist in de facto terms). I don't do research on education, however, so it would be pretty left-field and I don't have credibility in that area.
Never mind. You won't want to by then anyway. Not that not being in the education or labor field should be an impediment anyway.
By the time you get tenure, you'll be continuing to love the race and gender oh-so-unfair mantras because they make wealth for the tenured community and you'll be on board with adjunctification for the same reason. And you won't even have to say you like it. You can blame it on others.
QuoteThat said, none of your points make race-based discrimination acceptable, either legally or ethically, nor is there a clear parallel between adjunct pay gap and race-based pay gap since, as I noted, the job requirements for adjuncts and full time faculty are not the same.
Speaking of job requirements, I'm expecting as soon as the pandemic is over, for those who still have a job, there will be a new round of required diversity training for us, where we will be pressured to make confessions about white privilege and such to people with 'full time', salaried and permanent benefitted jobs and lavishly paid outside consultants. This makes me snicker.
You don't know me at all, so not sure why you're so sure how I'll behave or what I'll think in the future. I've been an adjunct before, prior to doing a PhD and as a PhD student. I understand what it is like just as much as you do.
The diversity training at my university is nothing like what you describe. It is an online video followed by a few multiple choice questions. The point is to show the user how not to commit discriminatory offenses that will make the workplace hostile to minorities and will potentially lead to penalties (i.e. getting fired from your job).
The race/gender mantra, whatever that means, doesn't bring me wealth or consulting or whatever else you think. My pay and any merit raises that come my way are based on publications, with teaching and service also factoring in at the margins.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 10:05:09 AM
Quote from: rhetoricae on October 27, 2020, 09:59:41 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 09:06:43 AM
Quote
QuoteI'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.
I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?
It's interesting that whenever these issues come up (which, of course, is very often), you default to the assumption that anyone who is FT faculty, tenured or not, does not do these things. Or, at a minimum, you take pains to make statements which imply that that's the "default setting" for FT faculty.
MANY of us actually do all of these things. Some of us have even presented at national conferences on these issues, and engage actively in advocacy. The continual insistence/implication that FT have it so good that they most likely either don't care or actively work against equity for ALL faculty, contingent or not, is really tiresome. Huh -- it's almost as tiresome as someone making judgments or inferences about one's core beliefs on the basis of party identification. Fancy that.
But the advocacy is almost always for a little more shifting of the balance towards more tenure track positions, which, were it to happen, would still involve the segmented workforce. It's never plausibly for all tenure track workforce, since everyone knows that isn't going to happen. In other words, still regular use of leftover-crumbs-from-the-banquet teaching jobs. And it's never for the obvious solution, an overhaul of the system, with everything on the table, including drastic tenure reform, with the approach that all jobs should be real jobs that are plausibly recommendable to students who would get themselves trained to become teachers.
That's why your kind of comment is so awfully tiresome.
And many more claim to are deeply about pay equity, but do not. and with typical preening, ask us to believe they go around all day fretting about wealth disparity among races.
I'll just say that you actually (demonstrably) know nothing about the advocacy work or positions of myself, my peers, or my discipline. You might have a point that such advocacy "almost always" doesn't go too far enough. But your categorical statements about advocacy, support, or reform efforts amongst FT faculty (in my discipline, at least) are, quite simply, both false and pretty offensive. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The fact that this thread has been hijacked by adjunct grievances is illustrative of the point that none of this will ever be solved. The issue really is class, not race. The issue really is race, not class. Argue amongst yourselves. I'm going to go roll around on top of a pile of cash, then talk my way out of a speeding ticket.
Quote from: writingprof on October 27, 2020, 11:54:02 AM
The fact that this thread has been hijacked by adjunct grievances is illustrative of the point that none of this will ever be solved. The issue really is class, not race. The issue really is race, not class. Argue amongst yourselves. I'm going to go roll around on top of a pile of cash, then talk my way out of a speeding ticket.
It's not going to be solved, except on an individual basis, for some, but that doesn't mean it has to also be lied about. That's why I prefer your perspective.
Re: hijack
For the record, the term 'adjunct' first appeared in a post by Sun Worshipper.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 08:51:29 AM
Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Just use different job titles. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference - that's big $ too) pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.
The first post referencing "adjuncts", unless I'm mistaken and you aren't one. I know you didn't use the word, but...
If you aren't an adjunct, then I apologize.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 03:51:39 PM
Re: hijack
For the record, the term 'adjunct' first appeared in a post by Sun Worshipper.
You brought it up, actually:
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 08:51:29 AM
Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Just use different job titles. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference - that's big $ too) pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.
Quote from: Hegemony on October 26, 2020, 02:52:16 AM
I just feel like this thread is just asking for trouble. It's just going to attract polarized responses, isn't it? And some reasonable calm people are going to post, but also some inflammatory people, and then others are going to take offense (probably sometimes justifiably), and the whole thing is going to be a train wreck. Is there anyone out there who doesn't already have an opinion? A strong opinion? And if there is, why don't they go read some thoughtful writings on the topic, rather than a list of opinions of various degrees of fury, as this one will soon turn into? Has anyone ever been persuaded by people throwing comments around in an anonymous online discussion? The research I've seen is that it just makes people more polarized and determined in their original opinions, and makes them detest the other side a little bit more. Can't we go do something useful instead?
It's interesting in a way that you'd say this about the thread but not the article itself, which is much more widely disseminated.
My father was a republican and there never was kinder, gentler man. I think it's really stupid to write things like this Meyerson did. It was stupid of Biden too. It could turn out to be another 'basket of deplorables' thing. People do not realize the negative power and provocation in saying something like that.
Quote from: rhetoricae on October 27, 2020, 11:36:58 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 10:05:09 AM
Quote from: rhetoricae on October 27, 2020, 09:59:41 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 09:06:43 AM
Quote
QuoteI'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.
I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?
It's interesting that whenever these issues come up (which, of course, is very often), you default to the assumption that anyone who is FT faculty, tenured or not, does not do these things. Or, at a minimum, you take pains to make statements which imply that that's the "default setting" for FT faculty.
MANY of us actually do all of these things. Some of us have even presented at national conferences on these issues, and engage actively in advocacy. The continual insistence/implication that FT have it so good that they most likely either don't care or actively work against equity for ALL faculty, contingent or not, is really tiresome. Huh -- it's almost as tiresome as someone making judgments or inferences about one's core beliefs on the basis of party identification. Fancy that.
But the advocacy is almost always for a little more shifting of the balance towards more tenure track positions, which, were it to happen, would still involve the segmented workforce. It's never plausibly for all tenure track workforce, since everyone knows that isn't going to happen. In other words, still regular use of leftover-crumbs-from-the-banquet teaching jobs. And it's never for the obvious solution, an overhaul of the system, with everything on the table, including drastic tenure reform, with the approach that all jobs should be real jobs that are plausibly recommendable to students who would get themselves trained to become teachers.
That's why your kind of comment is so awfully tiresome.
And many more claim to are deeply about pay equity, but do not. and with typical preening, ask us to believe they go around all day fretting about wealth disparity among races.
I'll just say that you actually (demonstrably) know nothing about the advocacy work or positions of myself, my peers, or my discipline. You might have a point that such advocacy "almost always" doesn't go too far enough. But your categorical statements about advocacy, support, or reform efforts amongst FT faculty (in my discipline, at least) are, quite simply, both false and pretty offensive. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, it's offensive to be called racist because you're not voting for Biden. It's offensive to be called a temporary employee by the same people year after year. And then to have these same people offer to help you learn to be a nicer person. There are some issues here.
Anyone is racist if you widen the definition enough. If we say that those who hate others because of race are racist, we have very few people. If believing that objective evidence supports that while some differences of outcomes are based on social bias, other differences in outcomes are the result of innate group features, we have another group of "racists" independent of verifiability of that statement. If someone is simply "not standing up for" certain groups to the extent others would like or in the way they prefer, that's another group of "racists." Whenever there aren't enough people fitting the current definition to keep various activists in business, just widen the pool of racists.
Quote from: financeguy on October 27, 2020, 09:02:25 PM
Anyone is racist if you widen the definition enough. If we say that those who hate others because of race are racist, we have very few people. If believing that objective evidence supports that while some differences of outcomes are based on social bias, other differences in outcomes are the result of innate group features, we have another group of "racists" independent of verifiability of that statement. If someone is simply "not standing up for" certain groups to the extent others would like or in the way they prefer, that's another group of "racists." Whenever there aren't enough people fitting the current definition to keep various activists in business, just widen the pool of racists.
This post is so good and true, I feel like George Costanza in the do-the-opposite episode of
Seinfeld. Financeguy's post isn't just potent analysis; it's my new religion.
Quote from: financeguy on October 27, 2020, 09:02:25 PM
Anyone is racist if you widen the definition enough. If we say that those who hate others because of race are racist, we have very few people. If believing that objective evidence supports that while some differences of outcomes are based on social bias, other differences in outcomes are the result of innate group features, we have another group of "racists" independent of verifiability of that statement. If someone is simply "not standing up for" certain groups to the extent others would like or in the way they prefer, that's another group of "racists." Whenever there aren't enough people fitting the current definition to keep various activists in business, just widen the pool of racists.
This is the logical fallacy/doublespeak mantra that "If you're not
anti-racist, then you're racist." (And, of course, the person saying it gets to
define what is required to count as "anti-racist", so everyone who doesn't conform to the speaker's wishes is, by definition, "racist".)
Quote from: financeguy on October 27, 2020, 09:02:25 PM
Anyone is racist if you widen the definition enough. If we say that those who hate others because of race are racist, we have very few people. If believing that objective evidence supports that while some differences of outcomes are based on social bias, other differences in outcomes are the result of innate group features, we have another group of "racists" independent of verifiability of that statement. If someone is simply "not standing up for" certain groups to the extent others would like or in the way they prefer, that's another group of "racists." Whenever there aren't enough people fitting the current definition to keep various activists in business, just widen the pool of racists.
Sure, but there really is no need to stretch the definition like this to identify racism. Just look at the poll cited in the opening post.
And the most important racism that actually holds people down is structural racism, rooted in historical legacies, not whether some individual person says they don't like people of another race.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 28, 2020, 07:23:33 AM
Quote from: financeguy on October 27, 2020, 09:02:25 PM
Anyone is racist if you widen the definition enough. If we say that those who hate others because of race are racist, we have very few people. If believing that objective evidence supports that while some differences of outcomes are based on social bias, other differences in outcomes are the result of innate group features, we have another group of "racists" independent of verifiability of that statement. If someone is simply "not standing up for" certain groups to the extent others would like or in the way they prefer, that's another group of "racists." Whenever there aren't enough people fitting the current definition to keep various activists in business, just widen the pool of racists.
Sure, but there really is no need to stretch the definition like this to identify racism. Just look at the poll cited in the opening post.
And the most important racism that actually holds people down is structural racism, rooted in historical legacies, not whether some individual person says they don't like people of another race.
The thing that holds black Americans down the most is the absence of the father in the home. Your man Obama explained it years ago.
If I want to help black America, and you love protesting, do I have a right to demonstrate against the practice of getting people pregnant and then disappearing?
How about showing that the thing 'holds people down' is racism and not other factors? And speaking of being held down, is that why people from the other countries keep moving here, driving cabs, learning new trades, getting decent jobs, and staying for the rest of their lives? Why would you move somewhere new, at great trouble and expense, to be held down?
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 28, 2020, 07:23:33 AM
And the most important racism that actually holds people down is structural racism, rooted in historical legacies, not whether some individual person says they don't like people of another race.
That's good to know. Since structural racism doesn't exist, we've solved the most important problem!
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 28, 2020, 07:23:33 AM
Quote from: financeguy on October 27, 2020, 09:02:25 PM
Anyone is racist if you widen the definition enough. If we say that those who hate others because of race are racist, we have very few people. If believing that objective evidence supports that while some differences of outcomes are based on social bias, other differences in outcomes are the result of innate group features, we have another group of "racists" independent of verifiability of that statement. If someone is simply "not standing up for" certain groups to the extent others would like or in the way they prefer, that's another group of "racists." Whenever there aren't enough people fitting the current definition to keep various activists in business, just widen the pool of racists.
Sure, but there really is no need to stretch the definition like this to identify racism. Just look at the poll cited in the opening post.
And the most important racism that actually holds people down is structural racism, rooted in historical legacies, not whether some individual person says they don't like people of another race.
+1
Also, has no one on this thread heard or seen the musical "Avenue Q"? And the song, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist"? Musical theatre, people--it solves the world's problems.
For the good of the fora, I present some cogent, to-the-point, non-accusatory, applicable anti-racism training in about 5 1/2 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqiVLlYyvTs
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 27, 2020, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 03:51:39 PM
Re: hijack
For the record, the term 'adjunct' first appeared in a post by Sun Worshipper.
You brought it up, actually:
Quote from: mahagonny on October 27, 2020, 08:51:29 AM
Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Just use different job titles. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference - that's big $ too) pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.
The elephant in the room. Higher education is social justice conscious with issues that already have traction. There is no push for pay equity within the culture from anyone with any influence. Whenever the issue is raised people talk about research, as you did, reinforcing how it's overvalued in relation to teaching. So the optics are, hypocrisy and self-serving involvement with favorite liberal causes. If anyone's looking, and as usual with hypocrisy, people are happy when they're not looking.
Quote from: writingprof on October 28, 2020, 07:39:14 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 28, 2020, 07:23:33 AM
And the most important racism that actually holds people down is structural racism, rooted in historical legacies, not whether some individual person says they don't like people of another race.
That's good to know. Since structural racism doesn't exist, we've solved the most important problem!
If you actually care to scrutinize your assertion with empirical studies, then I'm sure you can use your university access to review some empirical literature. My strong suspicion is that if you look at a range of studies in top sociology outlets you will find plenty of evidence for structural racism.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 28, 2020, 07:38:28 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 28, 2020, 07:23:33 AM
Quote from: financeguy on October 27, 2020, 09:02:25 PM
Anyone is racist if you widen the definition enough. If we say that those who hate others because of race are racist, we have very few people. If believing that objective evidence supports that while some differences of outcomes are based on social bias, other differences in outcomes are the result of innate group features, we have another group of "racists" independent of verifiability of that statement. If someone is simply "not standing up for" certain groups to the extent others would like or in the way they prefer, that's another group of "racists." Whenever there aren't enough people fitting the current definition to keep various activists in business, just widen the pool of racists.
Sure, but there really is no need to stretch the definition like this to identify racism. Just look at the poll cited in the opening post.
And the most important racism that actually holds people down is structural racism, rooted in historical legacies, not whether some individual person says they don't like people of another race.
The thing that holds black Americans down the most is the absence of the father in the home. Your man Obama explained it years ago.
If I want to help black America, and you love protesting, do I have a right to demonstrate against the practice of getting people pregnant and then disappearing?
How about showing that the thing 'holds people down' is racism and not other factors? And speaking of being held down, is that why people from the other countries keep moving here, driving cabs, learning new trades, getting decent jobs, and staying for the rest of their lives? Why would you move somewhere new, at great trouble and expense, to be held down?
Multiple things can be true: Fatherless homes in black communities can be a deterrent to upward mobility or success, but by the same token structural forces can be at play (e.g. poor public schools in urban minority communities, biased and generally poor policing, etc.), and of course the high rates of fatherlessness in black communities is itself affected by structural factors (e.g. the drug war waged largely in poor urban neighborhoods that leads many black men to long-term prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenses).
Mahagonny, for whatever reason you are deeply invested in insisting that racism is not a problem in America, but I would encourage you to clear your priors and look at America's history. Blacks in America were just given equal rights in the 1960s, after decades of slavery, followed by jim crow, separate but equal, etc. Do you honestly not think that that recent history has no effect on our society and the people in it today?
Quote from: little bongo on October 28, 2020, 07:50:04 AM
Also, has no one on this thread heard or seen the musical "Avenue Q"? And the song, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist"? Musical theatre, people--it solves the world's problems.
For the good of the fora, I present some cogent, to-the-point, non-accusatory, applicable anti-racism training in about 5 1/2 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqiVLlYyvTs
Interesting video, but since 2011, it would now be considered
very offensive by many on the left, and the concept of "equality of bigotry" would be
vigorously opposed. (And talk of everybody just being less "PC" would be considered "violence".)
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 28, 2020, 08:18:51 AM
Quote from: little bongo on October 28, 2020, 07:50:04 AM
Also, has no one on this thread heard or seen the musical "Avenue Q"? And the song, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist"? Musical theatre, people--it solves the world's problems.
For the good of the fora, I present some cogent, to-the-point, non-accusatory, applicable anti-racism training in about 5 1/2 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqiVLlYyvTs
Interesting video, but since 2011, it would now be considered very offensive by many on the left, and the concept of "equality of bigotry" would be vigorously opposed. (And talk of everybody just being less "PC" would be considered "violence".)
Well, ideally that's why I'd love for
everyone to listen to it for a bit. I'm a lefty myself, but I hope I haven't completely lost my sense of humor.
Quote
Multiple things can be true: Fatherless homes in black communities can be a deterrent to upward mobility or success, but by the same token structural forces can be at play (e.g. poor public schools in urban minority communities, biased and generally poor policing, etc.), and of course the high rates of fatherlessness in black communities is itself affected by structural factors (e.g. the drug war waged largely in poor urban neighborhoods that leads many black men to long-term prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenses).
Drugs are a big problem that I care a lot about, one that resonates with me in my life and the life of many friends (some now dead). Despite the fact the
white people who read Rolling Stone and think everything black people do is cool are the biggest consumers of hip hop recordings, people who make recordings about 'purple drank' and other unhealthy glorifications of drug culture and create untold harm in urban black communities have not made one thin dime off me since the days of Jimi Hendrix.
There's a Candace Owens video where she talks about how black Americans are the only group who regularly turn the worst among them into heroes while ignoring their great achievers. With the help of certain whites.
Just doing my part.
Quote from: little bongo on October 28, 2020, 08:39:17 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 28, 2020, 08:18:51 AM
Quote from: little bongo on October 28, 2020, 07:50:04 AM
Also, has no one on this thread heard or seen the musical "Avenue Q"? And the song, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist"? Musical theatre, people--it solves the world's problems.
For the good of the fora, I present some cogent, to-the-point, non-accusatory, applicable anti-racism training in about 5 1/2 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqiVLlYyvTs
Interesting video, but since 2011, it would now be considered very offensive by many on the left, and the concept of "equality of bigotry" would be vigorously opposed. (And talk of everybody just being less "PC" would be considered "violence".)
Well, ideally that's why I'd love for everyone to listen to it for a bit. I'm a lefty myself, but I hope I haven't completely lost my sense of humor.
Sadly, in the last decade the Overton window has shifted a great deal.
QuoteMahagonny, for whatever reason you are deeply invested in insisting that racism is not a problem in America, but I would encourage you to clear your priors and look at America's history. Blacks in America were just given equal rights in the 1960s, after decades of slavery, followed by jim crow, separate but equal, etc. Do you honestly not think that that recent history has no effect on our society and the people in it today?
History, as in, what has happened to us, or how liberal academics explain it to us? Recent history includes many things, affirmative action, quotas hiring, etc.
Equal rights doesn't mean equal success. It means equal opportunities under the law and individual freedom. What people do with that freedom can vary a lot. From what I hear the Asian Americans are outdoing Caucasian Americans scholastically by a big margin. Does this mean someone is being oppressed or unfairly advantaged by the system?
I honestly have to wonder how people who want to talk about structural racism all the time think arriving at a stage where black Americans are not oppressed, by their definition, will be achieved? We can't even agree on how it's measured. What is the resolution envisioned here? I see that Ta Nehisi Coates thinks simply paying money to black Americans (reparations) will do this. It won't, because one party giving money to another does not create wealth and lasting success.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 28, 2020, 08:40:29 AM
Quote
Multiple things can be true: Fatherless homes in black communities can be a deterrent to upward mobility or success, but by the same token structural forces can be at play (e.g. poor public schools in urban minority communities, biased and generally poor policing, etc.), and of course the high rates of fatherlessness in black communities is itself affected by structural factors (e.g. the drug war waged largely in poor urban neighborhoods that leads many black men to long-term prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenses).
Drugs are a big problem that I care a lot about, one that resonates with me in my life and the life of many friends (some now dead). Despite the fact the white people who read Rolling Stone and think everything black people do is cool are the biggest consumers of hip hop recordings, people who make recordings about 'purple drank' and other unhealthy glorifications of drug culture and create untold harm in urban black communities have not made one thin dime off me since the days of Jimi Hendrix.
There's a Candace Owens video where she talks about how black Americans are the only group who regularly turn the worst among them into heroes while ignoring their great achievers. With the help of certain whites.
Just doing my part.
I'm happy to acknowledge that people in a community can do harm to that community and there are surely examples of that in the black community. However you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that racism has held back black Americans or that racism is a problem, even though your opening post clearly suggests that many Americans have racist attitudes. You exclusively blame black people for the problems that their community faces, without any acknowledgement of the historical legacies that contribute to these problems:
- Blacks experience police brutality? If only they had been more cooperative!
- Blacks disproportionately imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses? Rap music!
- Blacks earn less than whites for the same jobs? That's ok! Adjuncts!
I've been arguing with you for days, across threads, but you are clearly not budging off of your position, and you are not going to convince me that racism is a myth (or whatever it is exactly that you think), so what is the point of continuing this discussion?
Quote from: mahagonny on October 28, 2020, 09:11:51 AM
QuoteMahagonny, for whatever reason you are deeply invested in insisting that racism is not a problem in America, but I would encourage you to clear your priors and look at America's history. Blacks in America were just given equal rights in the 1960s, after decades of slavery, followed by jim crow, separate but equal, etc. Do you honestly not think that that recent history has no effect on our society and the people in it today?
History, as in, what has happened to us, or how liberal academics explain it to us? Recent history includes many things, affirmative action, quotas hiring, etc.
Equal rights doesn't mean equal success. It means equal opportunities under the law and individual freedom. What people do with that freedom can vary a lot. From what I hear the Asian Americans are outdoing Caucasian Americans scholastically by a big margin. Does this mean someone is being oppressed or unfairly advantaged by the system?
I honestly have to wonder how people who want to talk about structural racism all the time think arriving at a stage where black Americans are not oppressed, by their definition, will be achieved? We can't even agree on how it's measured. What is the resolution envisioned here? I see that Ta Nehisi Coates thinks simply paying money to black Americans (reparations) will do this. It won't, because one party giving money to another does not create wealth and lasting success.
I'm not aware of a difference between real history and "liberal history." Is Jim Crow liberal history or real history? Did slavery really happen, or was that just liberal history? In any case, there have been some social programs to help correct the injustices inflicted on Black Americans prior to the 1960s, and some of those programs have been somewhat successful. However, they are tiny in scale compared to the massive injustices that had been inflicted on black people for centuries prior to ~1965 - which really was not that long ago.
And you are right that equal rights does not necessarily lead to equal rates of success, but the historical legacies also don't evaporate overnight. While Asian Americans have been very successful, despite discrimination, it does not follow that we should say "racism isn't a problem because one group overcame it."
As for the resolution, it is a matter of improving the situation with reforms that create de facto equality. There are plenty of policies aside from reparations that could be administered, and reparations could take lots of forms (e.g. subsidies for minority-focused scholarships). Black people also have agency and it isn't just up to policymakers to fix problems in the black community, but lots of structural factors that currently exist are impediments and I can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to removing those impediments.
You don't have to convince me that racism is a problem. The disagreement as I see it is over how much attention should be paid to it. And my position is not 'always more than we have been.' The disagreement is also over to what degree systemic racism is responsible for the problems we have today.
Two people I have listened to recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3POpubeoIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp4fg9PWuhM
QuoteHowever you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that racism has held back black Americans or that racism is a problem, even though your opening post clearly suggests that many Americans have racist attitudes.
The article does not convince me anything much about racism and republicans versus democrats. For one thing, we have vivid memories of recent protest involving many blacks that resulted in pain for innocent bystanders. What do we we have to compare that to as far as recent protests not about race issues? If different groups of people play music differently, dance differently, they could also protest differently.
If you don't know the BLM protests caused people pain, you're not paying attention.
If anything the 'polling' done by Meyerson could indicate republicans are more forthcoming with their impressions or the usefulness of protests.
Meyerson is a far leftie and is looking for a gotcha moment before the election.
Of course, as finance guy points out, we might be using different definitions of racism.
Quote- Blacks earn less than whites for the same jobs? That's ok! Adjuncts!
It wouldn't be a matter of it being OK with me or not. What's OK with me is of no consequence. It's more a matter of who you trust to try and remove the hidden demons of racism from your white soul or to change laws, and what reason is there for them to be trusted.
I feel a lot of peer pressure at work and on Facebook to say the protests are cool, the looting and violence is not by BLM people, it's all either Richard Spencer's friends, Martians or someone else. I call bullshit.