Social Justice 101: Power Privilege and Oppression

[Iskar]

Thanks for you reply, elfdude, but I fear there has been a bit of a misunderstanding on some part: This post of mine (excluding the PS) replied to the previous post of chriscase, not the OP.

On a general note, it might be beneficial to the discussion to avoid the apodictic tone from which already the OP suffers. I think that condescension towards the unenlightened masses and missionary zeal to make them see the light (cum grano salis) might antagonise people more than the actual content. Replying by saying that it's "sad" that certain people don't understand something or that they are "so close" to whatever presumed wonderful truth is certainly not beneficial.
Despite the OP being an apodictic manifesto rather than a starting point for debate, it is certainly desirable to have a proper discussion about in how far the issues raised by the OP are ethically relevant and whether and how problems, once identified, should be tackled.

What I'm wondering about, for instance, is whether the US-centric view creates a bias that conflicts with the universalistic scope of the ethical agenda implied. I unfortunately have neither the data nor the time to collect them to say anything in the large on the situation in Europe/Asia/Africa, so I would highly appreciate if someone could elaborate on this.

[empr guy]

I think it's no secret that Asians are often discriminated against in the US as a side-effect of university admission policies meant to favor other minorities.

I have read about that but if you approach it from this SJW prospective then it seems like it would imply no one but black people have political representation since other groups need to score much higher, I dont think elfdude is trying to make that argument when it seems to me SJ is about how good white people have it (and really makes no sense)

[Elfdude]

I'm sorry, I legitimately can not take anyone seriously if they believe MSNBC is a reliable news organization, the "Big 3" if you will - CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are all catered towards getting viewers through sensationalism and a huge slant in either direction. CNN and MSNBC tend to the left, while Fox tends to the right.

As far as taking me seriously I don't really mind either way, I'm not arguing you accept my position from a position of authority or expertise.

The big 3 news organizations are: ABC, CBS and NBC. ABC is part of Disney, CBS is Viacom, and NBC is MSNBC. The big three news networks are the historically free news networks which have some of the highest standards of reporting in the business. To be fair I don't watch any of them.

I do believe this is the study you're citing: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ws-179175.html

MSNBC has taken it's place as a result of Fox New's success. Both the current version of MSNBC and Fox news would be considered in violation of the fairness doctrine. Regardless you should never use secondary sources (news agencies) as your final stop in source hunting, with few exceptions sources should return to their scholarly origins. However when it comes to facts Fox news blows both groups out of the water:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...tfacts-networ/

Fox news:58% of claims are found as false or mostly false
MSNBC: 44% of claims are found as false or mostly false
CNN: 22% of claims are found as false or mostly false

According to this blog or whatever PEW in 2013 (Wish I could find their original report, not that one that links to it because the link in that article only now leads to the newer PEW stuff which has nothing on the % of opinion vs actual news), the majority of MSNBC programming was opinion, and of course the opinion of MSNBC is unwaveringly liberal. Not that I'm a fan of Fox; I wouldn't want to be associated with anyone on that station (Nor do I identify with conservatives) but the point is they're one and the same just on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Cool, while I stand by my claim that MSNBC isn't as bad as Faux news I do not claim it's bias free.

I like to consider myself a bit of a liberal, but when I see more and more liberals going off the deep end, stuff like wanting to ban the Confederate flag I don't really know what to call myself. I value personal liberty above all, but I don't really think I'm a Libertarian either because I definitely think the government has a role to play in our lives to actually help safeguard citizens (ala Nationalized Healthcare).

I agree with you. It's nice to see a sensible libertarian.

And on your deconstruction: Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, it's because women are taking jobs that pay lower, or our lower minimum wage as a part of that (How many women do you know that are in waitress jobs? Many times they get paid below the minimum wage and have to make up the difference in tips, which by the way, is a cultural thing, not many countries tip like we do). I see a lot of accusations and assumptions of actual discrimination, and not much evidence for it actually being discrimination, as opposed to culturally what jobs men and women decide to take.

Did you read any of the sources I linked on this? Here's the best source on this idea that I've found which explains all of your concerns and explains why Maddox's playing with the statistics is just that, manipulation of statistics:

http://blog.dol.gov/2012/06/07/myth-...g-the-pay-gap/

Notably US Dept of Labor asserts the 23 cent wage gap is real and approximately 40% of it is the result of discrimination with another large portion suspected of biased expectations (encouraging men, while discouraging women).

As well, I don't know of any job, at any company where a man and a woman who are both starting out at the same position, where the woman would get paid or offered a smaller starting salary. Because that's what the "77 cents" myth purpotrayrs, that women do get paid less for the same job, yet I've never seen any evidence in the modern day pointing to that.

I'd also love to link to Sommers, but you've already dismissed her as "not a real feminist" so that would be pointless.

Yeah, sommers is a pointless link, as is maddox. I challenge you to find some academic sources, google scholar is your friend.

Now I can't fathom responding to an entire thread line by line, and I admit that the thought of digging through a massive quoted post looking for points to respond to also exceeds my personal dedication to the discussion, so I'll have to paraphrase the two points that I do want to repond to (which were repeated in several lines)...

The first is the assertion that I'm claiming that any particular genetic variant alone is responsible for pathological altruism. That is simply not what I said. In fact, I mentioned that all these variants must be circumstantially adaptive and probably responsible for things most of us can agree are positive, but that the high incidence of them in European populations contributes to a high percentage of individuals who are hyper empathetic. This would be through the stacking of multiple contributing genes which are subsequently modulated by enculturation. Also, neurotransmitters don't usually have single functions, so differences in receptor coding usually has multiple effects.

The assertion that this is this hypersensitivity translates to increased guilt is unfounded. In fact, I would say that pathological altruism characterizes the genes entirely in order to cherry pick data to suit this idea of pathological altruism. If you didn't catch it, I've read the book and while I found it interesting, I found it strange how they use a very unscientific concept of altruism, in fact the best chapter in the book explores what exactly is pathological altruism and the conclusion from the male author (can't remember off the top of my head) was that for the concept to work pathological altruism must be defined as the motivation to perform seemingly altruistic actions. However the assertion that these actions are in fact altruistic (and thus harmful) is unfounded in the fact that science does not recognize any true form of altruism. Reciprocal altruism is tit for tat and kin altruism is genetically determined. You could say that humans kid themselves and believe that their actions are driven by altruism but that is rarely the case and even then it's undercut.

The second is the claim that I'm quoting from one woman who is kind of a nut or just has an extreme interpretation. Well that's either a rhetorical trick or simply not paying attention. The book Pathological Altruism is an Oxford University Press publication with four editors (Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson) and the following authors:

Bobby K. Cheon
Joan Y. Chiao
Barbara Oakley
Lynn E. O’Connor
Arun Gandhi
Marc D. Hauser
Steven C. Hayes
Robert J. Homant
Ali Jawaid
Satoshi Kanazawa
Daniel B. Kennedy
Olga Klimecki
Ariel Knafo
Thomas B. Lewis
Madeline Li
Guruprasad Madhavan
Vani A. Mathur
Michael McGrath
Jane N. Nathanson
Gary J. Patronek
Jorge M. Pacheco
Michael L. Perlin
Karol M. Pessin
Jennifer Ruth Presnall
Deborah M. Riby
Francisco C. Santos
Tania Singer
David J. Stiver
Adolf Tobeña
John W. Traphagan
Brent E. Turvey
Carol Van Hulle
Roger Vilardaga
Thomas A. Widiger
David Sloan Wilson
Carolyn Zahn-Waxler

Different chapters have different (often multiple) authors. Most are anthropologists, biologists, developmental psychopathologists, geneticists, psychologists, and so forth.

EDIT: What I meant was the cultural conception of human rights.

You're basically quoting French and Raven's bases of power in the OP. The 1950s and 60s aren't more recent than 1988, but like I said, advocacy researchers have gone back looking for theoretical justifications to support the conclusions they already had in mind.

That's interesting because I've cited a lot of modern science.

http://www.affective-sciences.net/sy...JSI%202012.pdf

For example, it seems that teaching white privilege improves attitudes towards blacks but does nothing to diminish white perceptions of whites... interesting, so it's a benefit to one group with no cost to another?

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...5551000000.pdf

That's just a great read on the subject itself.

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2006-10123-002

Sorry I can't keep all the articles free, that's a great one too.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...3#.VZ88gvlVhBc

And that

How different types of privilege exist:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&typ...bernstein.html

This is helpful
http://ncbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2...ativestudy.pdf

http://studysites.sagepub.com/counse...Spanierman.pdf

http://www.cpt.org/files/Undoing%20R...%20Kendall.pdf

http://www.ru.ac.za/media/rhodesuniv...ge%20Place.pdf

http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/.../29645/A23.pdf

I could go on here but I doubt anyone is going to digest any of that for the content in them.

As for the idea that no one but black people have political representation? Not sure where this comes from

Political representation is defined as: individual or collective action at the national or local level that supports or opposes state structures, authorities, and/or decisions regarding allocation of public goods http://www.adams.edu/administration/...d-learning.pdf

I'll highlight data which points to oppression as red and privilege in green.

Political representation by demographic data:
Hispanic: 17% of population
Senate 3 out of 100 (3%)
House 12 out of 435 (2.8%)
Percentage Wealth (2.2%)
Median Net Worth $13,700 of $81,400 average (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...eat-recession/)
Highschool Graduation Rate 76% (US dept of education)
Percentage with 4 year or higher degree 13%

Black: 13.6% of population
Senate 2 out of 100 (2%)
House 42 out of 435 (9.6%)
Percentage Wealth (2.7%)
Median Net Worth $11,000 of $81,400 average
Highschool Graduation Rate 71% (US dept of Education)
Percentage with 4 year or higher degree 17.7%

Asian + Pacific Islander 6% of population
Senate 1 out of 100 (1%)
House 7 out of 435 (1.6%)
Percentage Wealth unknown
Median Net Worth $78,066
Highschool Graduation Rate 93%
Percentage with 4 year or higher degree 68%

Native American 1.6% of population
Senate 0 out of 100 (0%)
House 2 out of 435 (.5%)
Percentage Wealth unknown
Median net worth unknown
Highschool Graduation Rate 68%
Percentage with 4 year or higher degree 13%

Jewish 1.4% of population
Senate 10 out of 100 (10%)
House 19 out of 435 (4.4%)
Percentage Wealth unknown
Median net worth unknown
Highschool Graduation Rate ~95.1%
Percentage with 4 year or higher degree 58%

Middle Eastern .5% of population
Senate 0 out of 100 (0%)
House 1 out 435 (.2%)
Percentage Wealth unknown
Median net worth unknown
Highschool Graduation Rate unknown
Percentage with 4 year or higher degree unknown

White 62.6% of population (note, hispanics/latino NOT included)
Senate 84 of 100 (84%)
House 331 of 435 (76%)
Percentage Wealth unknown
Median Net Worth $141,900
Highschool Graduation Rate 86%
Percentage with 4 year or higher degree 30%

As you can see every group I mentioned in several ways lose out to white political representation and wealth, except Jews. Of particular concern is Black, Hispanic and Native populations which are consistently oppressed. I can do the same thing with gender that shows a large difference between women and men, and a large difference between both groups and the transgendered population. The biases are truly enormous here. According to the U.S. Census Bureau it's typical to find at least 40% of the difference the result of discrimination, however the US dept of labor notes that any biases that happen such as discouragement, encouragement of relative groups is likely an invisible factor which may inflate the 40% number dramatically.

[IlluminatiRex]

Is Sommers not an Academic? Did she not teach at Colleges for years? Does she not give Academic lectures across the country? Has she not written many books? Did she not receive an award from the National Women's Political Caucus? Is that not Academic enough for you? But that BLOG POST from the DOJ is Academic enough, and written by someone with no experience in being an Academic (other than a student. She was a lawyer at one point however). Oh I get it, she goes against your dogmatic idea of feminism, which is quite different from my idea and lines up a bit more with Sommers than it does yours.

This entire idea of Social Justice, "safe spaces", trigger warnings, have all led to a victimhood culture where hurting someone's feelings or making them mildly uncomfortable is the equivalent to having killed their entire family and then justice must be sought. An example would be a dance that my friend Beth, who was President of the GSA club on our campus last year, was running a dance during our 2nd Semester just to bring some extra awareness to the club and to do something fun. She put "No Jeans" on the posters, since that was basically the only rule - it was to be a semi-formalish event. After the initial run of posters were OK'd and printed by various powers at be on our campus and hung, she was told by the Campus Director and director of Student Activities that she couldn't have the word "No" on her poster because it's not inclusive enough. Like wtf? Sorry for having a basic guideline? That's a direct result of this victimhood and "can't make anyone uncomfortable or hurt their feelings a bit" culture.

A far more public example would be of Laura Kipnis, who is a Professor at Northwestern University. Earlier this year, she wrote an essay on excessive trigger warnings and a "prevailing sexual paranoia" on college campuses and 2 GRAD STUDENTS filed a Title IX complaint about her essay, because they were, bluntly put, of what she had written. Fortunately the school wasn't staffed by dolts and exonerated her after an investigation.

The Nation:

Kipnis is a cheeky, deliberately hyperbolic writer, as even her critics understand on some level. (Bona fide sexual harassers, she writes in the Chronicle, should be “chemically castrated, stripped of their property, and hung up by their thumbs in the nearest public square.” No one has demanded that she be reprimanded for supporting torture.) There are some things, though, that you can’t joke about. “[T]he climate of sanctimony about student vulnerability has grown too thick to penetrate; no one dares question it lest you’re labeled antifeminist,” Kipnis writes. “Or worse, a sex criminal.”

Her original essay that led to the Title IX stuff is definitely worth a read.

[empr guy]

Ok, how do those numbers show political oppression? Just because someone isn't black doesn't mean they cant support things that will benefit black people, not to mention these are at a federal level so if we were to assume white people vote for white candidates and minorities vote for minorities (which is a terrible assumption) it seems pretty obvious the majority is over represented, because minorities will be spread out into majority areas where votes based solely on race wouldn't work for them. Not to mention if my region elects a white guy that counts as privilege in your statistics, but if he's some right religious loon he won't represent me in any way.

The second idea you're bringing in is that minorities are oppressed by the educational system. Yet the source you provide says that problem is that people are trying to help but are going about it wrong. That's not oppression thats just the system failing. Bad? Yes, very, but not oppression.

As for the median household income, I agree that it is worrying. However according to government statistics one major bonus to income is from education (page 11). Fixing the problems in the education system will go a very long way towards equaling incomes, and as I said I don't believe the education issues represent oppression.

[Iskar]

I find it a very dangerous assumption to equal ethnicity to representation of interests. In fact this kind of thinking cements latent racisms, as it presupposes fundamental differences and antagonism between the ethnicities. In a democracy representatives should be elected for the political agenda they propose, not their skin colour, annual income, uni degree or whatnot. A liberal white candidate certainly represents a liberal black voter much better than a conservative black candidate, for instance. In fact, all these references to ethnicity or membership in one or the other artificially defined group should be totally unnecessary.

[sumskilz]

If you didn't catch it, I've read the book and while I found it interesting

Really? That explains why you believed the book had only one author instead of thirty-two; you even based arguments on that belief. It also explains why you can't distinguish between my arguments which aren't in the book but are supported by other evidence from those which are supported by evidence in the book. What I caught is that you are flat out lying.

In addition to lying about having read the book, I also caught from this post is that you're now passing off Diana S. Fleischman's perspectives as your own. This is not surprising since her review shows up on the first page of any google search for "pathological altruism". You even had the same favorite chapter for the same reasons. Not being able to recall Kanazawa's name was a nice touch for plausible deniability's sake, but a bit transparent. Although we are all influenced by other's arguments and ideas, you could have at least cited her as well as French and Raven in your OP.

You could say that humans kid themselves and believe that their actions are driven by altruism but that is rarely the case and even then it's undercut.

Exactly, so what are the SJW's real motives?

Depending on circumstance, biological altruism can be maladaptive like a moth flying into flame or it can be adaptive but pathological from a cultural/moral perspective. For example, sociopathy can be an adaptive evolutionary strategy and yet we still consider it a pathology. The term pathology says more about cultural values than evolution. Another example is homsexuality which is maladaptive from an evolutionary perspective (at least in those who have the behavioral phenotype) and yet it's no longer considered a pathology.

A person who gains a status benefit through the appearance of helping others, when they are hurting others in the long term, may in fact be engaging in an adaptive evolutionary strategy.

A person with a genetic deletion that causes them to be trusting and kind to everyone under all circumstances regardless of the danger to themselves is not engaging in an adaptive evolutionary strategy.

If you had read the book, you would know that many types of negative behaviors and pathologies related to behavior described as altruistic are explored, such as the aforementioned two examples. Your belief that the book contains an overarching thesis further reflects the fact that you didn't read it, although I can see how one would misunderstand Fleischman's review to suggest as much. Her main issue was that they didn't limit themselves to the evolutionary terms or at least outline the differences from the common understanding. The issue is that while the editors are mostly from evolutionary backgrounds, some of the authors are from developmental psychology and other fields which use the terms differently.

[Infidel144]

MSNBC has taken it's place as a result of Fox New's success. Both the current version of MSNBC and Fox news would be considered in violation of the fairness doctrine. Regardless you should never use secondary sources (news agencies) as your final stop in source hunting, with few exceptions sources should return to their scholarly origins. However when it comes to facts Fox news blows both groups out of the water:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...tfacts-networ/

Fox news:58% of claims are found as false or mostly false
MSNBC: 44% of claims are found as false or mostly false
CNN: 22% of claims are found as false or mostly false

Incorrect and/or misleading use of those stats.

[sumskilz]

Had a chance to look into elfdude's "scientific" sources...

Previously, I wrote:

I think the visceral responses are based more on foreknowledge of the pop culture/political rhetoric conception of privilege, rather than the descriptive aspects of the OP (which are nonetheless debatable to varying degrees). The privilege concept people are familiar with, the Women's Studies/American Ethnic Studies version, was developed out of a paper written by Peggy McIntosh in 1988 - White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies. You'll notice that there is no references to sociological theory or empirical data. That McIntosh's ideas weren't particularly rooted in the field of sociology (if at all) is not surprising considering her PhD was in English and her dissertation on Emily Dickinson's poems about pain. Drawing on the sociological literature (itself heavily influenced by Marxism) such as Gerhard Lenski's Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification (1966) was more of a post-hoc endeavor to add legitimacy to political conclusions that had already been reached. This is typical of Women's Studies and the various Ethnic Studies as fields since they are essentially engaged in advocacy research, unlike Sociology which attempts to be, or maintains the facade of being, objective despite being almost completely dominated by one end of the political spectrum.

To which elfdude responded...

That’s an interesting throwback, my ideas are based off more recent science although I wouldn’t be surprised if her paper is cited in the modern literature, however I would suggest that evidence has since supported the concept of privilege.

Then later in the thread he wrote...

That's interesting because I've cited a lot of modern science...

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...5551000000.pdf

Now here's the title and abstract of that study:

The discourse of denial: how white teacher candidates construct race, racism and 'white privilege'

This qualitative study focuses on a representative sample from 200 teacher candidates' responses to Peggy McIntosh's article, 'White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack'. The notion and understanding of whiteness and white privilege were explored revealing several strategies that teacher candidates employed to avoid addressing whiteness and its attendant privileges in Canadian society. We analyse three primary strategies that the teacher candidates employed: ideological incongruence, liberalist notions of individualism and meritocracy, and the negation of white capital. Some implications of this study are that teacher education must help candidates understand their own racial identity formation and provide the learning space to work with the range of emotions and feelings of indignation that evolve from an exposure to white privilege and the 'myth of meritocracy'.

So the authors of this study give white teachers this essay to read by the woman I said was the source of all this privilege BS. Now remember this essay is written by an English major and cites no empirical evidence and no sociological theory, but the study looks at how white teachers construct their denial of the essay's assumed factuality.

And who are these scientists?

R. Patrick Solomon was an associate professor of education at York University, co-author of Brave New Teachers: Doing Social Justice Work in Neoliberal Times

Arlene Campbell is an assistant professor of English at Prince Sultan University, co-author of Brave New Teachers: Doing Social Justice Work in Neoliberal Times

Beverly-Jean Daniel is a program coordinator for the Community and Justice Services Diploma Program at Humber College

John P. Portelli is professor in the Department of Humanities, Social Science and Social Justice Education at the University of Toronto, author of The dangers of liberal/rationalist policy discourse and the role of the philosopher in disrupting it

@elfdude

Are you really not reading your own sources either? The stuff you're posting that I've looked at so far just seems to reinforce the idea that these concepts are all based on advocacy research with post-hoc justifications from the sociological literature. You specifically said your ideas were based on recent science rather than Peggy McIntosh and then you cite a "scientific" study that is entirely based on the assumption that Peggy McIntosh's claims are factual.

[Himster]

It’s essay time: Gather ‘round children as I weave a tale of epic proportions involving sex, violence, intrigue, romance……. Actually it doesn’t involve any of those, this is about statistics, faceless masses contorted into neat and conforming blobs of separated arbitrary attributes arbitrarily selected. Let’s have fun.

Elfdude.

Okay first, the inherently racist and sexist nature of affirmative action and quota .
It is so mind numbingly obvious and simple: selecting a person based on gender/race for a position is sexist/racist, it doesn’t matter how “noble” one wishes the intentions are, or how much one wants to believe they’re redressing an imbalance and (less contentiously) it doesn’t matter if the motivation is the sincere belief that black people are inferior. They are all racist/sexist.

Tackling racism with racism not only doesn’t solve the problem, it isn’t going to stop people from disliking people they don’t like: quite the opposite it engenders and justifies that hatred and worse: it spreads it to people who weren’t racist or sexist before. It is racist/sexist on another level as well it perpetuates the assumption that certain-races/genders are incapable of competing on an even playing field. On another level it infantilizes minorities; it shifts the accustomed level of treatment expected by a certain ethnic-group/gender (white, straight, middle-class, heterosexual, cis-gendered males) and places it on another. It does the opposite of stopping racism/sexism; it accentuates it and shifts it. Like my lazy black, lesbian, Mexican cleaning lady: always sweeping the dirt under the rug: That’s not cleaning, Wanita li’kyurklit!! (I don’t know how to spell her name).

(That’s not true, my cleaning lady is Japanese).

If employers truly could get away with paying different groups different wages for the “same work”: why would they hire anyone else? Also how could all auditors and union representatives and inspectors and law enforcement officials in the entirety of America get such consistent bribes as to overlook such an absurdly large, ubiquitous and unbelievable discrepancy?

They are still correlations; from those correlations one can insert a wide variety of models to explain the statistics. But that’s all. You’ve made claims; racists/sexists have made claims: that’s nice. Like Muslims and Christians, I suppose you want me to prove a negative do you? I’m okay thanks. I’m fully sure you’ve been proven wrong about aspects of this many, many times. Obviously sexism and racism exist, it’s even endemic (I just don’t agree with the absurd and far-fetched scale so often claimed as “true” by social “scientists”), but you cannot, I repeat: CANNOT solve that (real problem) with quotas and affirmative action.

My definition of affirmative action: “A quota policy designed to redress past injustices suffered by select minorities through active measures to ensure that that field of business/art/politics etc. reaches demographical parity with the general population.”

Interesting, so it would be affirmative action to ensure that rates of admission and hiring resemble the normal distribution of the population? I mean personally I would be searching for reasons to explain why it wasn't in the first place. So himster, please give us a justification why admission rates and hiring rates should not equal the normal distribution of the population.

Equality of opportunity does not and should not be considered synonymous with equality of out-come. If some individuals who happen to be women happen to prefer the notion of raising a family as a stay at home parent rather than pursue a career, (or a man may prefer that). Or some ethnic group with historical ties to agrarian industry; wanting to pursue that to the detriment of other possible goals. There thousands of reasons why the demographics of particular fields don’t and shouldn’t represent the demographics of the wider population: personal and individual choice are more important (even though they are influenced by Past injustices bla bla bla) than utopian ideals of we’re literally all the same and should all have representatives of “our group” in all fields even if the aspiration of those individuals aren’t up to par. “Demographic” representation should represent individuals who merit those positions, regardless of race, gender, whether they have red hair, finger size, sexual preference or any other arbitrary attribute you wish to generate generalized groups with.

Political representation: Women. So, they have the majority of voting representation, all of the opportunities are there, the desire for actual change by the majority of people. Slow and incremental change being put in place, slowly but surely. Winning; winning; winning on every front. What’s the problem? Waaa, it’s too slow (I’m not doing an impression of you, it’s one of those Tumblr :wub:s) wa wa wa wa, patriarchy, wa, rape culture, wa, systematic oppression of women in all spaces including spaces run by and for women, internalized patriarchy of women daring to want to be stay at home moms bla bla bla. Okay, that was a rant that went on for too long: representation of women in politics: Yeah, it’s getting better, it’s not perfect, or even good IMO, but the level of whinging, the scale and exaggerated hysteria of it is just so absurd, it literally makes it impossible to discuss these issues reasonably and publically. Other than what we’re doing now, but even this can only for so far and for so long, also we don’t have so many hysterical “tumblrites” on this forum, so it’s not exactly representative of discussions in the wider internet/world.

…however the categories are useful because of their association with real differences which are not necessarily related to biological or physical difference so much as societally imposed differences.

They are useful to an extent, but these groups re still comprised of individuals, with individual aspirations. We cannot predict (except in the most general sort of way) what demographic representation should be without being able to read their minds. To highlight arbitrary groups and supposed/projected demographic representation over individual aspiration: plays directly into the hands of racists. You don’t remedy the problem that meritocracy is currently taking a back seat (due to biases(which are lessening)) by enforcing a quota system, that achieves the same (if mirrored) result, an unmeritocratic system, where favoured ethnic/gender attributes have simply been swapped. True meritocracy requires a complete rejection of racial/gender myths, not just a mirror version of traditional racial/gender myths. This takes time, rushing it with dramatic, quick and relatively easy quota-enforcing does more harm than good, regardless of good intentions.
As for colorblindness: I don’t agree with your definition that colorblindness rejects the existence of racism, it a rejection of the notion that race should matter. I think this is something that you subscribe to, if slightly unwillingly. It’s perfectly possible to reject race as an issue concerning one’s personal perception, while recognizing the fact that racism persists in certain parts of the wider culture. Colorblindness is a notion that needs to be spread, proselytized from the highest steeples of secular thought.

Your perceived implications of an equal society: It doesn’t mean that if left handed people make up x% of the population, they will therefore make up x% of doctor demographics. There are too many variables to take into account, the most unaccountable being: individual-personal-thought, individual-personal-desire. Even Big Brother can’t control or adequately account for that.

[fkizz]

Is Sommers not an Academic? Did she not teach at Colleges for years? Does she not give Academic lectures across the country? Has she not written many books? Did she not receive an award from the National Women's Political Caucus? Is that not Academic enough for you? But that BLOG POST from the DOJ is Academic enough

Anyone who does not subscribe to "Social Justice" is instantly not an Academic it seems.

[athanaric]

while white people can very confidentally dawn what is considered "gangster" styles without the "gangster" perspectives that go along with it.

The word you're looking for is don, not dawn. No offense intended, as its rare.

No it is not. Gentrification is the process of using market forces to homogenize a neighborhood.

In my (live, actual) experience, gentrification, although it may be the result of central planning, is the natural result of the hipster crowd, i.e. young people with financial backing, moving into low-rent urban neighbourhoods, businesses catering to their demands following, and then rich people who're attracted to the young, hip, ethnically "diverse" "scene" feel.

It's directly recognized as a tool of racism, and classism.

By whom? If you think it's the result of a conspiracy, you'd better source it.

No it is not. How is it doing this? Because you can't be assed to try to understand a basic scientific concept?

How's it scientific?

It is for the U.S. If you're not a U.S. citizen I agree that some of these issues probably don't apply as much or directly. However I doubt that you can find me a western nation without Class, Race and Gender being the 3 biggest areas identified disparities.

Here's an even better one: find me a non-western nation without these.

Power Privilege and Oppression is more acceptable in Europe as it's considered part of critical thinking and basic teaching there.

What.

Not true at all. Please find me the european country that is this wonderland for black people or people in color in general. They don't exist.

Once again, I take issue with that word. It's really no better than "" ("the n word", since it's just about the only racial insult to consistently be censored on internet sites, in a massive display of double standards).
That said, they don't have to. "People of colour", as you call them, aren't native to Europe (native Europeans are various shades of "white" or "ambiguously brown"). Of course they have to work harder to be accepted by the locals.
What you seem to be entirely unaware of is that there are "affirmative action" laws of sorts in place, at least in Germany, to entice companies to preferentially hire women and "minorities" (referring to non-native, rather than to native ones). Despite the fact that it's against the Constitution (Grundgesetz). But that's OK, because the constitution and democracy.

And now, please find me the Asian country that is this wonderland for black people.

I didn't post it as an example of quality research but rather as quick and loose examples. It's sad that you can't seem to understand the difference. Buzzfeed also has articles about the big bang on them, doesn't mean big bang isn't a real concept too.

It's entirely meaningless. Why not quote wikipedia, at least they use sources? Also, the Big Bang is a near-universally agreed-upon concept in science. Your "privilege" ideology isn't science, it was made up by people from American Studies and the like.

Most of what we know comes from europe. The U.S. is not the only place where white privilege is recognized. In most of the wold white privilege is recognized. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/20/race.uk

See above?

In fact when studying race one of the most surprising things is how Whites have been consistently the only group that hasn't seen dramatic and systemic oppression for their whiteness.

Oh dear. You wanna discuss history. OK. Source?

Biased imposed by a particular way of doing something. For example I am systemically biased against the use of my left hand, I'm right handed. In terms of national perspectives it's talking about the institutions, beliefs, and biases which promote racism (often inadvertently) through their operation.

See, the problem I have right there is the use of words like "inadvertently" or "unconsciously". If you criminalize inadvertent or unconscious acts, you open Pandora's Box. You can't punish people for acting foolishly or being unaware of something, otherwise we'd all be dead.

This is in regards to two native english speakers. It's not uncommon to hear someone say you don't look like you sound as a Person of Color if you have an "American" accent.

This is problematic because even in the US, it being a very young country, you have different dialects of English. Are you sure this is always about sociolects and not dialects? Also, similar biases towards certain dialects (and the people speaking them) are common.

Jeez himster, look at your bed partners here. This is what people believe and what contributes to the continual enshrinement of white privilege across the world.

Now this is actually insulting. The first sentence, that is - the second one is just absurd. You're saying "jeez, Himster, just between you and me, do you want to be associated with this retard?"
I'd advise you to take that back.
I was just relating what I've seen reported in American media.

We're not talking about violent people. We're talking about a style. On one race it's style, on another it's an advertisement of crime.

No, it's the same. People in Europe who emulate that style are usually up to no good, or are lowlifes. That's the public perception, anyway.

Omigod, did you just stumble upon a uniting factor between national origin and race?! THERE'S HOPE. You can also swap nation and race with gender.

Race transcends national origin, as does "gender".

Which country are you in?

Yurp, the country where all people are the same and white privilege is from. IOW, Germany (not Paris - the other European country).

White by it's nature has become a uniform culture mostly drawn by it's own boundaries of what is is not.

Only in America. If at all.

I would argue about the unfairness here and your statistics. Care to cite your claims here?

What, that young black Americans are statistically more likely than other American youths to commit crime, or that men are more likely to commit violent crime (particularly against strangers) than women?
The unfairness refers to the individual man, black or not, if he's innocent of the crimes he's statistically more likely to commit.

I can't speak on how good the media is in europe. In the U.S. whites are almost never referred to as terrorists even when other countries recognize them as such. It's an odd behavior that we don't seem to do consciously but affects our judgement nonetheless. There should be studies of similar things in europe but I doubt it's as pronouced.

Well, fair enough.

Not described as terrorists after they were found to be white.

What, the Tsarnayev brothers weren't ever described as terrorists after being identified? That's hard to believe.

America is divorced from the historical white on white infighting, white differentiation between germans and english people here amounts to where their grandparents were from and not much else. We used to have terms like WASPS and etc but for the most part pejoratives about whites don't exist. The closest I know of are honkey and cracker, both of which only became acceptable after whites began to use them, I assume other more obvious insults were tried and failed to become popular because whites didn't like them. Which other group can do that?

What about Kike, Dago, Limey etc.?

Mexicans are a spanish culture. That is literally what hispanic means.

Mexicans are ethnically mostly Native American, and their culture may derive from the Spanish one, but it has local elements. According to your logic, the Spanish should resent the Latin American adoption of their language because of the ethnic differences. Or to take another example, African Americans should be mad at Jazz connoisseurs in Europe, Europeans should be mad at Americans for stealing our ideas and technologies, etc.

I don't appreciate cultural appropriation much either though.

Then what do you define as such? Any and all adaptation of cultural elements, or just the ones done for laughs? If the latter be the case (I hope so. Otherwise, you'd be arguing for segregation), how then do you judge what is done in genuine affection and what is appropriated for and giggles?

No they don't. Cite.

What, you want me to cite that policemen know crime statistics? You seem to believe that police in your country routinely, with malicious intent, target certain demographics. That assumption should be proven first. Are you sure you're talking about the USA here?

Oh wow, someone is missing the point to a truly unnerving degree. You are a credit to your people anthanaric.

So if a Russian or Romanian person complains about Eastern European slavery (which has been a thing for millennia, and unlike African American slavery it's still going on, to some degree) in America, do you people listen to them, or does nobody care?
That said, I do agree that there's massive hypocrisy and ignorance going on concerning these matters - for example, people getting the victim numbers of the Holocaust wrong (they forget the 5 million non-Jews). While I also agree is that one should remember atrocities of the past, one shouldn't build one's identity on them, or use them to demand social privileges. What I take issue with is how the word "slavery" is always meant to represent the American experience.

Do it, then account for natural distribution.

No thanks, no time.

Not really true at all.

Absolutely true. Ever tried it yet?

In most of Africa including south Africa whites still have privilege. There's a reason why actors from these countries are several shades lighter than the average person in their community.

"White privilege" in those parts means that everyone assumes you're rich just because of your skin colour, and they try to scam the hell out of you. Even positive experiences won't make you forget that visually, you're sticking out like a sore thumb.
South Africa is different because not only has it only recently been colonized by either black or white people, but it also has a significant white population.

It's the preferred term.

By whom? It implies that white people are set apart from the rest, which is by definition racist. Besides, the only people without colour are actually Albinos. Who are more likely to exist in Africa, ironically.

I don't know what he's referring to, cite?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika...-apartheid_era

Zomg, an admission of religious oppression. It's funny how you attempt to eschew the concepts you're using in this statement.

These are had facts, actual privileges granted by federal law, not some fancy theories. That's the difference.

Not sure what is offensive about cultural appropriation. I would agree when you take a cultural tradition of one society and make it the subject of ridicule in another it's offensive.

Aha. Now that's more relatable.

This is almost hilariously inaccurate. If SJW were predominantly white then the problems that SJW talk about wouldn’t be so hard for whites to understand.

Go figure, people of a certain belief in the equity of others tend to vote a certain way.

Most SJWs I've encountered (including the ones on this board) or read about were white. Phier seems to have had the same experience. Maybe yours is different - it may depend on the region.

They are rudimentary, what’s hilarious here is that, for people familiar with the concepts I’m advancing your arguments are akin to arguing against evolution as a Christian fundamentalist. It’s not really a concept you can argue against. You can debate semantics and try and claim that somehow the wording is inherently insulting but once you get past your personal hurts you realize how useful this system is for considering another’s perspective.

Ironic how you as someone employing SJW vocabulary and arguments can be arguing against "personal hurts"...

[Phier]

Anyone who does not subscribe to "Social Justice" is instantly not an Academic it seems.

There is a somewhat ironic truth to that. I'm sure taking an opposing stance would be career suicide at some institutions, making you no longer an Academic. If there is one thing SJW's can't stand, its dissent from their narrative.

[DaniCatBurger]

There are various approaches and one chooses the one which fits best to the self assumedly, the abilities and the context of activities certainly, too. I would think a domination-free sphere of discussion can be positive and under other circumstance a moderated talk can help or even a very structured checking through an argument. It depends on the situation. However, there are individuals that are occupied in conversation with themselves and with writing a good part of their time. The kind of activity requires closing up oneself from the outer environment to focus on the inner horizon of the own conscious and subconscious activities. It can be necessary to choose and not to engage with everything and everyone. Power privilege and oppression describe features in that sense, which can be found in an outer environment and may lighten up on the inner horizon of the mind even. It's a privilege to use books and experience inner struggles until one can write down reasonable sentences.

[Derpy Hooves]

Why do races, gender, creed and everything else need to have equal political representation? The only thing that needs political representation are localities. My Congressman should not be representing rich old white male interests, but the interests of Fox Chapel, Blawnox, Aspinwall, etc.

[Border Patrol]

Where is that? Besides in your head?

In the following quote, actually.

I would suggest you're missing a critical component of recognizing difference and assigning it environmental and circumstantial causes and recognizing difference and dehumanizing others because of it. Just search colorblind racism in google, there's plenty of very well thought out reasons why what you're saying not only is wrong but also is part of the problem.

Not sure what is offensive about cultural appropriation. I would agree when you take a cultural tradition of one society and make it the subject of ridicule in another it's offensive.

You're insinuating that I'm not an actual American simply because I have different roots than yourself. I am not Mexican, I don't speak Spanish, and I certainly don't cruise around listening to narco music. The idea that some sort of Mexican-American culture would follow me around because of the circumstances of my birth is for lack of a better word, troubling.

No, in fact it argues that the differences observed are the result of factors beside their blackness.

That's not at all the argument I've seen you put forth in the thread.

It's not cultural appropriation then if its your own culture, it could still be offensive if you're ridiculing your own culture.

Again, my culture is American. I'm not Mexican-American. I'm not Spanish-American. I'm American.

I am of the opinion that your ethnicity is a factor in your beliefs and actions and perceptions, I am also of the opinion that how your parents dealt with ethnicity as a factor of their own beliefs and actions has been impressed upon you as someone with hispanic roots, however despite not having white privilege I wonder what other privileges you do have. It's interesting how you should be very aware of the scrutiny you will receive on sole basis of your skin color from the cops. If you're not right now you will be.

Am I the first hispanic you've talked to before? I am an upstanding citizen, and thus far all my interactions with the police have gone just peachy. I can't stress enough how upsetting it is that you are now alienating me from the group solely on the basis of my skin color. People such as yourself are the only ones in my life that have ever drawn such arbitrary distinctions around me.

[Roma_Victrix]

The word you're looking for is don, not dawn. No offense intended, as its rare.

For a Teuton, your English is impeccable, sir. Bravo! I applaud you and tip my monocle approvingly at you, good gentleman. (Yet I also scoff at your failure to place an apostrophe in the contraction "it's," meaning "it is.")



It must not be too difficult picking it up, though, seeing how English is a Germanic language.

Here's an even better one: find me a non-western nation without these.

And now, please find me the Asian country that is this wonderland for black people.

Ooh! Can I try?! Can I try?! Please let me try, Athanaric! C'mon! Okay. Here it goes: China!

Oops! No. Not that one. The Chinese are racist as hell against black Africans (although some live in China, albeit not without recurring episodes of Chinese students forming mobs to harass them due to perceived threats against Chinese women).

Okay, let me take another stab at this: India! Nope, not loved there either (even the paragon of civil rights Mahatma Gandhi had choice words for black Africans).

Surely I'll hit the hammer right on the nail with the next one: Kazakhstan! Oops! Nope, not that one either. Black people are NOTORIOUSLY harassed and discriminated against in former Soviet republics, let alone Russia itself. I should know, I lived in Kyrgyzstan for two years as a Peace Corps volunteer and had a couple Nigerian footballer friends there.

South Korea! Nope. Dammit! I could feel it; I almost had it this time. Surely enough, South Koreans aren't big fans of the blacks either, unless you're a super rich American hip hop artist. Same goes with Japan.

Vietnam! ...Wait, nope, not them either. They particularly hate half-black, half-Vietnamese people because they are the offspring of black American GIs from the Vietnam War.

Thailand! Nope, not them either. They hate black skin and exalt pale, white skin (much like their other Southeast Asian and East Asian neighbors).

I suppose you'd have to go to some place in Asia where there are like no black people at all, like Bhutan or something, in order to find people who don't hate blacks and use their privileged position as native Asians to discriminate against them. Then again, how many Bhutanese or Nepalese people interact with black people from Africa?

Alright, I give up, you win, Athanaric. You win!

What, the Tsarnayev brothers weren't ever described as terrorists after being identified? That's hard to believe.

Yep, they've always been described as terrorists, and rightly so, because, for lack of a better word, they are terrorist. Just as the white guy (and Oklahoma City bomber) Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Along with the 19th and early 20th century anarchists who assassinated politicians and planted bombs everywhere to terrorize people for political aims. Terrorism isn't exclusive to one group (even if the hilariously vast majority of terrorist acts committed in 2015 are from Islamic groups based in North Africa and the Middle East).

Mexicans are ethnically mostly Native American, and their culture may derive from the Spanish one, but it has local elements. According to your logic, the Spanish should resent the Latin American adoption of their language because of the ethnic differences. Or to take another example, African Americans should be mad at Jazz connoisseurs in Europe, Europeans should be mad at Americans for stealing our ideas and technologies, etc.

Good point. How DARE YOU be a connoisseur of jazz and obscure Miles Davis tracks. I bite my thumb at thee for that.

[empr guy]

Why do races, gender, creed and everything else need to have equal political representation? The only thing that needs political representation are localities. My Congressman should not be representing rich old white male interests, but the interests of Fox Chapel, Blawnox, Aspinwall, etc.

I think If you don't make these arbitrary divisions to make it look like everyone is being oppressed somehow, then SJ looses a lot of purpose.

[Elfdude]

Ok, how do those numbers show political oppression?

Ok, so normal distribution of population is assumed, we must assume this because that's exactly what a normal distribution is there for, it describes a probabilistic outcome with a gradient of possibilities. With political representation we would assume the ratio of candidates who make it into office are normal by race. This is because, as you and many others have pointed out, a black candidate can support a "white" view whereas a white candidate can support a "black" view. Thus the color of the person should be irrelevant however we can see by the bias surrounding race that there is something skewing the distribution of candidates. This is to say, for some reason white candidates are being voted for by both groups whereas black candidates are consistently not voted for by whites.

So if discrimination wasn't present we would expect whites equally likely to vote for blacks as whites (when distribution is taken into account), unfortunately this is not the case.

http://ps.ucdavis.edu/people/bhighto...whiteblack.pdf

In fact that finding is pretty much the same where-ever we look. Taking into account that about 20% of the population seem to change their vote based on the race of the candidate discrimination is massively present. On the other hand we see the same discrimination between blacks and whites.

So what makes discrimination of whites oppression? Whites represent a majority opinion, the function a relatively small group of whites is more than enough to offset the contributions of a small minority. In this case it's conceivable that racist elements of whites make up a population that is greater in number than blacks or latinos. Discrimination + power = oppression. Although most whites are not guilty of this race bias in any study the only "group" which has the necessary power to suppress a minority of racists this large is in fact the white community. I.E. We can call it your social responsibility to suppress racism because only you can effectively pressure those who are racist to cease being so.

Just because someone isn't black doesn't mean they cant support things that will benefit black people

You're correct and this assertion provides evidence for the concept of power privilege and oppression. However we can measure the gap between political representation based on opinion polls of the black community. By assessing the black community we discover what it considers its own needs to be. The lack of reflection of this within the political arena reflects a disregard for the black opinion. So I suppose the question is does this gap exist? Do politicians factor in black opinion or do they disproportionately ignore it? This is a good paper which explores exactly that: http://rrca.revues.org/482

However it finds again that the issues which are prioritized by black communities are not the issues prioritized by any significant portion of the political assembly. The number of senators for example that care about racial equity and champion it is a tiny minority while most are ambivalent about any component that racism has and a few are openly racist.

not to mention these are at a federal level so if we were to assume white people vote for white candidates and minorities vote for minorities (which is a terrible assumption) it seems pretty obvious the majority is over represented

It's not just at the federal level, ferguson is another example of oppression where a disproportionate amount of the people serving "justice" are completely mismatched in opinion and background to the people that they exert authority upon. In most local cases this is the same. With governors this is the same. While in some communities because of local majorities we see higher representation of minorities I'd be willing to say in no district is being white a bad thing but in plenty being a person of color is. The worst areas are the judicial system and executive system where very few people of color exist.

because minorities will be spread out into majority areas where votes based solely on race wouldn't work for them.

True enough, but as you charge that shouldn't matter because whites aren't voting against candidates based on race... but they are. Which is to say black people are relatively speaking oppressed. Who they are oppressed by is irrelevant, what's clear is the gap is real.

Not to mention if my region elects a white guy that counts as privilege in your statistics, but if he's some right religious loon he won't represent me in any way.

True enough but as much as 20% of the vote will sway with him anyway just by virtue of him being white. That's pretty significant. I'm not calling you racist, I'm not saying you're responsible for people voting like that, I'm charging that you're the one we have to convince to change it. If you do nothing the racists win and can maintain the status quo indefinitely. Only through acting against the racist minority can you remove the barriers of oppression that minorities feel. You honestly have that power. The KKK will never care how much black people hate them, but if they are demonized by every white person they'll find it pretty hard to exist. On the other hand the KKK is alive and well with enormous amounts of wealth and influence.

The second idea you're bringing in is that minorities are oppressed by the educational system. Yet the source you provide says that problem is that people are trying to help but are going about it wrong. That's not oppression thats just the system failing. Bad? Yes, very, but not oppression.

That is oppression, remember that discrimination + power is oppression. If I discriminate against you but I have no influence on you it doens't matter. However as a teacher if I discriminate I'm directly influencing the outcomes of you and everyone else along the lines of my discrimination. Yes, discrimination is relatively rare, and yes, discrimination is something everyone does about something for some reason. However in the case of race and gender we have some pretty solid evidence that discrimination is enormous.

As for the median household income, I agree that it is worrying. However according to government statistics one major bonus to income is from education (page 11). Fixing the problems in the education system will go a very long way towards equaling incomes, and as I said I don't believe the education issues represent oppression.

Ok, then call it something else. I call it oppression because that's the definition of the term I use, however if you want to call it inconveniences or whatever else have at it. The point is that it exists and that difference directly impacts the overall picture. Overtime the effect of this is to build more barriers between the two groups. It's the same idea as interpretative inconsistencies building up and resulting in a new religious denomination distinct from another practice. If you understand positive feedback you understand the effect. If you agree there is a differential effect and you agree with the concept that a positive feedback loop can exist which further impacts the problem then you understand the problem that I'm describing. My assertion is that if you don't take an active stance against discrimination then you allow the operation of those who descriminate with authority to continue and their operation is significant enough to perpetuate or even worsen the problem.

Is Sommers not an Academic? Did she not teach at Colleges for years? Does she not give Academic lectures across the country? Has she not written many books? Did she not receive an award from the National Women's Political Caucus? Is that not Academic enough for you? But that BLOG POST from the DOJ is Academic enough, and written by someone with no experience in being an Academic (other than a student. She was a lawyer at one point however). Oh I get it, she goes against your dogmatic idea of feminism, which is quite different from my idea and lines up a bit more with Sommers than it does yours.

US Department of Labor, they've published multiple studies on the wage gap, if you don't like her summary of their findings you can help yourself to the massive number of sources in the post. They're all different studies too btw, not the same one quoted in 10 different ways. I'm happy to entertain Sommers as an academic however I would not take Sommers position as indicative of the academia on the subject and I do not entertain the idea that it's an academia conspiracy either. I dismiss Sommers on the basis of her poor argumentation.

This entire idea of Social Justice, "safe spaces", trigger warnings, have all led to a victimhood culture where hurting someone's feelings or making them mildly uncomfortable is the equivalent to having killed their entire family and then justice must be sought.

I might agree with you that there's some pretty big examples where it's not helpful and may be even useless but I would disagree it's damaging. As for equivilancies, we're not playing the unfortunate olympics here, the argument was designed to present two concepts, positive feedback loops and differential outcomes. If you understand positive feedback loops (a mathematical concept) and differential outcomes (another mathematical outcome) you must agree that the fact of the situation as we observe it indicates something is acting to create barriers between the two groups and skewing their normal distribution. You can hypothesize ideas for what that is which we can critically evaluate or we can look at the literature and see why we think that is. Human development 101, sociology 101, psychology 101, pretty much any science class you could take gives you the basic framework to evaluate my position as true. What is arguable is the solution to the issue, the issue itself unequivocally exists.

An example would be a dance that my friend Beth, who was President of the GSA club on our campus last year, was running a dance during our 2nd Semester just to bring some extra awareness to the club and to do something fun. She put "No Jeans" on the posters, since that was basically the only rule - it was to be a semi-formalish event. After the initial run of posters were OK'd and printed by various powers at be on our campus and hung, she was told by the Campus Director and director of Student Activities that she couldn't have the word "No" on her poster because it's not inclusive enough.

This is actually federally mandated and while it gets in the way when it comes to something "simple" like this it also prevents students from doing things like "no queers". There are ways around it which basically consist of defining a dress code and calling the dance a "formal" dance. Regardless the school could lose it's federal funding for allowing someone to do something like "No queers", and rather than risk it in a situation that probably wouldn't go awry it's much easier to just prohibit that provision it in the first place.

Like wtf? Sorry for having a basic guideline? That's a direct result of this victimhood and "can't make anyone uncomfortable or hurt their feelings a bit" culture.

No, you're using a situation which is admittedly insignificant to highlight why a rule which protects against very significant harm is pointless. For example there's a rule of me holding a knife to someone's throat, the fact that (at least for myself) were I to do so the last reason I would do so would be to actually cause someone harm is irrelevant to the fact that I put someone in a vulnerable position. The fact that I might have done it as a joke, or with a credit card, or with a plastic knife might diminish the sentence I receive but it will not provide an affirmative defense for the law I broke. We make several good sense compromises in order to draw boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not. I would point out that discrimination comes with a 'reasonable' clause which allows the courts to decide whether it was reasonable to conclude that any sort of discrimination occurred in the first place. If a child hits me in the face it is technically assault, however there's no reasonable cause to worry about my own safety and it would be both inappropriate to charge that child or for me to hit them back. Why does the school avoid shades of gray? because within shades of gray exist room for interpretation and within room for interpretation comes the possibility of being held accountable. In the modern day it costs anywhere from 5,000-10,000 to just defend yourself in court and schools will often simply settle small manners for several hundreds of dollars to keep it from reaching that point, my entire High School's budget was 400,000$ a year and it's stretched in every conceivable way, what do you think the effect of one legal suit is? God forbid a student can demonstrate real damages caused by their exclusion. Of course schools have some protection here but lawsuits are large enough that every school system has to budget for them.

A far more public example would be of Laura Kipnis, who is a Professor at Northwestern University. Earlier this year, she wrote an essay on excessive trigger warnings and a "prevailing sexual paranoia" on college campuses and 2 GRAD STUDENTS filed a Title IX complaint about her essay, because they were, bluntly put, of what she had written. Fortunately the school wasn't staffed by dolts and exonerated her after an investigation.

The Nation:

Her original essay that led to the Title IX stuff is definitely worth a read.

https://chronicle.com/article/Sexual...trikes/190351/

You mean this one?

This is about one of the worst ever essays I've ever seen. It presumes that there existed some magical yesteryear where discrimination wasn't a thing and where professors didn't take advantage of students. Conveniently skipping over the fact that that is exactly how we got to this point. It's so utterly ridiculous to take any of her assertions from which she seems to base her perspective on seriously when you realize the times she's referring to are the worst. Then she goes on to talk about how an unskilled sexual harassment teacher couldn't explain basics to her. Here's the answer, you can make sexual advances towards students, the first time is OK unless from the content of your words the student has a reason to assume that their grades or performance in the class is threatened by their refusal. If the student refuses ANY further come-ons are sexual harassment, this is interpreted by the standard of reason (is it reasonable to think they declined, if not then no harassment occurs). The big problem is that teachers are in a position to significantly skew student's grades as the result of romances and they have been known to do so before at a significant rate, I would suggest we'd find a similar rate to the 1 in 5 I mentioned earlier with other authority figures.

She goes on to imply that accusations are made flippantly (despite all evidence indicating the opposite) and that sexual crimes are elevated unfairly. No, groping is not considered rape in any state in the country, yes penetration even by one finger IS. If you don't have consent to have sex just don't do it. That doesn't seem so hard to understand. I can get that from a previous generation where sex was almost not talked about at all that can seem awkward but it seems a stupid thing to rely upon subconscious ques that most can't even interpret.

I find it a very dangerous assumption to equal ethnicity to representation of interests.

It is a dangerous assumption however that assumption can be validated or invalidated fairly easily. It seems that the assumption is validated in a variety of ways at least in the ways that matter for me to advance my position.

In fact this kind of thinking cements latent racisms, as it presupposes fundamental differences and antagonism between the ethnicities.

No, it presupposes differences between the ethnicities, it does not state anything about their origin. MY assertion is that they're the result of discrimination and oppression which is largely the operation of unconscious bias on probability. Others assert that these differences are nonexistent. Some assert that these differences can be explained via other reasoning. My contention is that they cannot do so enough to eliminate the validity of this perspective at some degree.

In a democracy representatives should be elected for the political agenda they propose, not their skin colour, annual income, uni degree or whatnot.

Agreed. So then why does it seem that they're not?

A liberal white candidate certainly represents a liberal black voter much better than a conservative black candidate, for instance. In fact, all these references to ethnicity or membership in one or the other artificially defined group should be totally unnecessary.

Agreed again. So why then are they not?

Incorrect and/or misleading use of those stats.

Howso?

Really? That explains why you believed the book had only one author instead of thirty-two; you even based arguments on that belief. It also explains why you can't distinguish between my arguments which aren't in the book but are supported by other evidence from those which are supported by evidence in the book. What I caught is that you are flat out lying.

*sigh*

Are you really going to play at that?

I never said the book had a single author, I said the book was based on a single lady's work. That is true because only one person uses pathological altruism in any form in any sort of scientific literature that I've found.

In addition to lying about having read the book, I also caught from this post is that you're now passing off Diana S. Fleischman's perspectives as your own. This is not surprising since her review shows up on the first page of any google search for "pathological altruism". You even had the same favorite chapter for the same reasons.

So, since Diana S Fleischman knew the book was written by multiple people but apparently I didn't but it's pretty clear I read her review. Yes I have read Diana's review before but I haven't yet attempted to find reviews for the book. Her critique is an accurate one and far more detailed than my own. http://dianafleischman.com/pathologi...uismreview.pdf

I am a biologist, her reasoning naturally appeals to me.

Not being able to recall Kanazawa's name was a nice touch for plausible deniability's sake, but a bit transparent. Although we are all influenced by other's arguments and ideas, you could have at least cited her as well as French and Raven in your OP.

Which is it? Did I not read the book? Did I imply it was written by one author? Did I rip off a review by someone else who broke the book down by different authors? You're making wild stabs in the dark here.

Exactly, so what are the SJW's real motives?

Self interest.

Depending on circumstance, biological altruism can be maladaptive like a moth flying into flame or it can be adaptive but pathological from a cultural/moral perspective.

There is no altruism which is shown to be maladaptive. You must first establish that concept as real before you can move on. A moth flying into a flame is not altruistic. The idea is that humans have been hoodwinked into being altruistic to their own detriment, yet the literature is pretty staunch against this concept of altruism in the first place. So while we might call a behavior which is maladaptive altruistic in motivation, we would need to simultaneously realize that the only type of altruism scientifically recognize is rather selfish. What's interesting is there's no convincing argument that such a maladaptive behavior even exists, the authors seem to just run with the concept that pathological altruism is real. Which is to say, the name is misleading. What might be more accurate would be behaviors encouraged as good which are in fact bad. However these behaviors are mostly based on bias and assumption. I would state that there is no pathology here just inaccuracy.

For example, sociopathy can be an adaptive evolutionary strategy and yet we still consider it a pathology.

We think it could be an adaptive evolutionary strategy. Genetic distribution also plays a role (assumption being, sociopathy is one presentation of a complex spectrum which arises due to the normal distribution of genes) i.e. a positive behavior is more valuable than the effect of sociopathy's negative.

The term pathology says more about cultural values than evolution. Another example is homsexuality which is maladaptive from an evolutionary perspective (at least in those who have the behavioral phenotype) and yet it's no longer considered a pathology.

When you consider individuals, homosexuality actually provides kin altruism which can recover from the loss of not having your own child. However the same explanation of sociopathy seems favored for homosexuality, the presentation of homosexuality is one extreme rare presentation of a spectrum of genes associated with socializing which occurs for no other reason than the normal distribution of genes.

A person who gains a status benefit through the appearance of helping others, when they are hurting others in the long term, may in fact be engaging in an adaptive evolutionary strategy.

You mean propaganda? You're attempting to reframe negative behavior believed to be good behavior as maladaptive altruism. That seems silly to me.

A person with a genetic deletion that causes them to be trusting and kind to everyone under all circumstances regardless of the danger to themselves is not engaging in an adaptive evolutionary strategy.

I'm not sure how you get trusting and kind to everyone regardless of circumstance from the scientific literature. That would be a pretty major discovery if what you were saying is true.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24149058

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24997351/

I don't see evidence of this deletion acting the way the pathological altruism book describes and the evidence for the other gene also does not indicate the extremes implied by your rationale.

If you had read the book, you would know that many types of negative behaviors and pathologies related to behavior described as altruistic are explored, such as the aforementioned two examples. Your belief that the book contains an overarching thesis further reflects the fact that you didn't read it, although I can see how one would misunderstand Fleischman's review to suggest as much. Her main issue was that they didn't limit themselves to the evolutionary terms or at least outline the differences from the common understanding. The issue is that while the editors are mostly from evolutionary backgrounds, some of the authors are from developmental psychology and other fields which use the terms differently.

Yes, there was several presentations of pathologies that they claimed extended somehow to this concept of acting upon propaganda as fact (or what they've redefined as patholical altruism). The reframing of confirmation bias, egocentricism, agenda driven philosophy and etc as pathologies extending from societal encouragement of altruism, and supposed genetic predeterminants. They're all fundamentally built upon a house of cards which is essentially an exercise of redefining understood concepts in a way that makes oakley's previous research more relevant. I would call the book an attempt at exactly the same thing it is describing, a misinformed attempt to show the science of tolerance and empathy as oakley frequently claims is detrimental. However the way they do that is by redefining two concepts with similar terms so they seem to be the same thing, however it's important to note that the meanings implied by their semantic sleight of hand are no different than the idea that beliefs and worldviews are driven out of self interest expressing themselves through the potential viable behaviors each person percieves to exist, naturally if the perception is faulty then the behavior often is too.

So the authors of this study give white teachers this essay to read by the woman I said was the source of all this privilege BS. Now remember this essay is written by an English major and cites no empirical evidence and no sociological theory, but the study looks at how white teachers construct their denial of the essay's assumed factuality.

And who are these scientists?

R. Patrick Solomon was an associate professor of education at York University, co-author of Brave New Teachers: Doing Social Justice Work in Neoliberal Times

Arlene Campbell is an assistant professor of English at Prince Sultan University, co-author of Brave New Teachers: Doing Social Justice Work in Neoliberal Times

Beverly-Jean Daniel is a program coordinator for the Community and Justice Services Diploma Program at Humber College

John P. Portelli is professor in the Department of Humanities, Social Science and Social Justice Education at the University of Toronto, author of The dangers of liberal/rationalist policy discourse and the role of the philosopher in disrupting it

Personally I feel like you're asking me to demonstrate contiguously a line from origin of idea to scientific employment. I will address this in another post because honestly the ask here is very steep and will require a ton of research to put together.

@elfdude

Are you really not reading your own sources either? The stuff you're posting that I've looked at so far just seems to reinforce the idea that these concepts are all based on advocacy research with post-hoc justifications from the sociological literature. You specifically said your ideas were based on recent science rather than Peggy McIntosh and then you cite a "scientific" study that is entirely based on the assumption that Peggy McIntosh's claims are factual.

Ok we're going to have to dissect this critique a little more.

Advocacy research - I'm not sure what you mean by this but I'm assuming you're implying it's agenda driven research, I would say highly that this is not the case. For example a lot of the research consists of researchers who are ambivalent about the concept.

Post-hoc justifications - I assume you're talking about attempts after the experiment is done to conclude results, I would point out every experiment or study does this, the next step is to test those conclusions as new hypothesis, this has been done and massively so. One would not be inaccurate to say that there was a academic rejection of this information for a long time however the burden of proof has overwhelmed contrary opinions.

Peggy McIntosh is recognized as a good writer but she's done little more than put together concepts which were already being scientifically discussed into a single paper. While I believe her paper is a pretty good summary I wouldn't ever use it as a source. The fact of the matter is the concepts she's describing are pretty much accepted and understood scientifically.

The real issue I have with your assertions here sumskillz is that you're essentially attempting to claim that a positive feedback loop doesn't exist and that differential outcomes will not promote the operation of one. My assertion is that it does and moreso that the majority and those with power have a responsibility to attempt to use that power to remove barriers that those with less power have insofar as we value those members of society. You haven't touched adult learning theory, you have touched critical learning theory, you haven't touched the psychology which describes how beliefs and actions are related such as cognitive theory, group theory, and biology, you haven't touched in on the sociology principles like epidemiology and population distribution, you've only touched on one essay which you claim underlies the entire structure of what I'm saying. My assertion that it does not underlie anything but rather represents a popular description of the ideas implied by the above concepts. The only way you have touched this is from a skeptical point of view from the outset. It's rather irritating because with skills like yours at advancing perspectives you would likely be awesome at arguing counter the proposal you are right now. So I advance this to you, play devil's advocate, search for the facts that it would take for you to argue for this concept, if you're convinced my position has no support prove it.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439059...n_tab_contents

Here's a pretty good one. But don't worry, your critiques deserve real attention I will be addressing them thoroughly. My intention is to rewrite my OP with the information I've learned and reboot the discussion.

It’s essay time: Gather ‘round children as I weave a tale of epic proportions involving sex, violence, intrigue, romance……. Actually it doesn’t involve any of those, this is about statistics, faceless masses contorted into neat and conforming blobs of separated arbitrary attributes arbitrarily selected. Let’s have fun.

Arbitrary attributes arbitrarily selected. Arbitrary means without regards to relation. I chose statistics which were related to the groups I chose. The groups I chose were indeed arbitrary. I demonstrated the rigor of those arbitrary distinctions by showing the differentiation between them. This is basic science, if you have an issue with my rigor then assault it but simply stating them as arbitrary is insufficient to dismiss their factual relevance in describing the world around us.

Okay first, the inherently racist and sexist nature of affirmative action and quota sh!t.

Ok, let's talk about that.

It is so mind numbingly obvious and simple: selecting a person based on gender/race for a position is sexist/racist

But your assertion is divorced from the central idea of affirmative action which is to reduce the bias caused by others selecting a person based on gender/race for a position. If you want to assert that doing this is racist you must prove that doing so is in fact causing a bias of it's own which is counter to the goal outlined in its employment. You have not done this. All you're doing is sticking to black and white interpretations which are wrong. Sexism and racism cannot exist without both discrimination and power, it is not discrimination to remove the influence of discrimination, or rather it's discriminatory of discrimination, it is not discrimination of men because it does not imply men will be rejected with regards to gender, and it is not discriminatory to white because white will not be rejected with regard to gender. What it does is says that you cannot reject women because of discrimination, what it does is say you cannot reject people of color because of discrimination. If you can demonstrate why departing from the natural distribution of the population is not discrimination I'm all ears.

it doesn’t matter how “noble” one wishes the intentions are, or how much one wants to believe they’re redressing an imbalance and (less contentiously) it doesn’t matter if the motivation is the sincere belief that black people are inferior. They are all racist/sexist.

True. Unfortunately you're strawmanning affirmative action. Have fun.

Tackling racism with racism not only doesn’t solve the problem, it isn’t going to stop people from disliking people they don’t like: quite the opposite it engenders and justifies that hatred and worse: it spreads it to people who weren’t racist or sexist before.

That's not true, affirmative action is successful.

The concepts of Affirmative Action were first implemented in the 1960's-1970's these were:

1. Adult, white males make up something called the U.S. business mainstream.

Still true, a white felon is more likely to get a job than a Black man with no criminal record.

2. The U.S. economic edifice is a solid, unchanging institution with more than enough space for everyone.

Still true, U.S. capitalistic spirit underlies this emphasis even in today's economy.

3. Women, blacks, immigrants, and other minorities should be allowed in as a matter of public policy and common decency.

Still true, we can add a lot more reasons to this one however.

4. Widespread racial, ethnic, and sexual prejudice keeps them out.

Still seems to be true.

5. Legal and social coercion are necessary to bring about the change.

This is the only one which may be arguable.

If you have an alternative perspective on coming to this outcome I'd be all ears. My perspective is that education can much more effectively cause this sort of change with a lot less hurt feelings. It's entertaining however to think that principles that everyone accepted 40-50 years ago have become contentious.

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/71/4/589.short

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439059...n_tab_contents

Regardless, you still haven't addressed how this thread is not about affirmative action but rather presents a method to understand social inequity.

I also am waiting to hear how correcting a bias that exists (the mission of affirmative action) is a bad thing. You've alluded to vagueries about reverse racism and color-blindness. I want you to deal with the real differences which exist between these demographic groups. I want you to imagine what the "average" family looks like who is white vs the "average" family who is black and I want you to explain to me why those two things don't resemble each other even vaguely. I want you to show me that the luck of birth doesn't influence outcomes. It does. We know it does. We know there are gaps. You even admit there are gaps. These gaps are by definition oppression. If you want to call it something other than white privilege call it racial/class/gender oppression. It's two ways of saying the same thing, one group, relative to another, has different starting conditions which are massively different than average (multiple standard deviations biased) but you're no closer to advancing your argument now than you were in the start IMO.

It is racist/sexist on another level as well it perpetuates the assumption that certain-races/genders are incapable of competing on an even playing field.

No it doesn't in fact it asserts the opposite, that races are capable of playing on an even playing field but that the current field is skewed.

On another level it infantilizes minorities; it shifts the accustomed level of treatment expected by a certain ethnic-group/gender (white, straight, middle-class, heterosexual, cis-gendered males) and places it on another. It does the opposite of stopping racism/sexism; it accentuates it and shifts it. Like my lazy black, lesbian, Mexican cleaning lady: always sweeping the dirt under the rug: That’s not cleaning, Wanita li’kyurklit!! (I don’t know how to spell her name).

It's quite literally sweeping that high spot from under the rug. Ignoring the differences accomplishes what you're describing.

If employers truly could get away with paying different groups different wages for the “same work”: why would they hire anyone else? Also how could all auditors and union representatives and inspectors and law enforcement officials in the entirety of America get such consistent bribes as to overlook such an absurdly large, ubiquitous and unbelievable discrepancy?

The employers are not getting away by paying different groups different wages.... Right? Oh wait no they are.

For the most part the biggest issue is providing increased barriers to earn those wages to People of Color. For example one way that the wage gap presents itself is with regards to initial offerings of salary. Companies have a large differentiation of possible offerings which they retain via negotiation rights. This is essentially a judgement call based on A. What does the individual feel they're worth, B. What does the market say they're worth C. What is the maximum savings I can get through salary negotiations. For people of color this is inevitably skewed because the base is skewed already. Which is to say, companies expect to pay what a white male is worth in salaries, any savings on top of that is seen as good accounting, the fact that two different groups are in dramatically different positions with regards to salary negotiations is ignored. Another way that biases present themselves is with regards to hiring, if I hire people of one class more often than another class then the burden on proof is on me to prove that my choice wasn't based in discrimination.

Furthermore, there are companies which do this exact thing and they get caught by the courts all the time. GE was caught in 2005, and again in 2010, the suit charged that higher ups new about the discrimination of a middle manager but delayed investigation allowing further discrimination to go on. Southern California Edison was caught numerous times from 1971, 1994 and again in 2010, evidence showed that despite the two previous suits rates of employment and discrimination quickly returned to levels prior to the suits. Walmart was accused of denying work to 4500 black freight workers and truckers which then settled out for 17.5. Walmart has been subject to several dozen discrimination lawsuits and many have been victorious. As the largest employer in the US that's pretty significant. Abercrombie and Fitch, Louis Vuttan, UPS, Tiffany and Co., BMW, Coca Cola, Comcast, Kodak, Kaiser Family Foundation, Staples, Officemax, Chevron, Texaco, Shell, Exxon, Microsoft... I could go on here. In fact there might be something to phier's theory that companies hire people of these demographics with an assumption of savings which may explain why the practice is so common. If we apply some basic math most of the damages suffered are still much larger than the settlements paid which implies an overall saving on behalf of the companies. If true, it would be a perfect example of systemic oppression created by a legal system which allows one group to be disenfranchised in a way that saves money.

I would say one of the most obvious issues with employment however isn't wage gap but salary negotiation, self worth, and perception of competency. For whatever reason it's consistently shown that hiring managers simply rate equivilant entities lower if they're percieved to be ethnic. This has been studied with names (ethnic names get fewer callbacks, or interviews), skin color, immigration status, and even accent.

They are still correlations; from those correlations one can insert a wide variety of models to explain the statistics. But that’s all.

No they cannot. Correlation does not equal causation but we can determine the relation of the correlation to the problem observed. We can use correlation to show that a connection exists. It requires experimentation to show what connections exist if any. Many people have advanced the hypothesis that these are the result of statistical anomalies and inherent differences in races/gender/class, unfortunately no matter how many factors they include NO academic has been able to dismiss the gaps entirely. At best such attempts can reduce apparent gaps up down to 33% the size most organizations report (as with the wage gap) however that Gap is still significant and is still, by definition, oppression.

You’ve made claims; racists/sexists have made claims: that’s nice. Like Muslims and Christians, I suppose you want me to prove a negative do you? I’m okay thanks.

No, I don't need you to prove a negative because I'm not telling you to prove that people don't descriminate, people have attempted thousands, perhaps millions of studies attempting to explain way these gaps as abberations which represent nothing. The fact of the matter is no matter your frame of reference, no matter your views, no one, conservative nor liberal has managed to eliminate those gaps. When Forbes and the WSJ publish articles on the importance of diversity and cultural competency, when they publish articles on privilege and wage gaps that confirm that they really do exist you're really scratching the bottom of the barrel to come up with people willing to say that they do not exist. At best, the few real academics which are counter to this position feel that the cry of oppression is too loud not that it doesn't exist.

I’m fully sure you’ve been proven wrong about aspects of this many, many times. Obviously sexism and racism exist, it’s even endemic (I just don’t agree with the absurd and far-fetched scale so often claimed as “true” by social “scientists”), but you cannot, I repeat: CANNOT solve that (real problem) with quotas and affirmative action.

That's neither true nor relevant. My solution is not to impose affirmative action but I will stand by my claim that affirmative action is effective at ending racial and gender oppression. In the last 50 years since it was implemented Affirmative Action has helped state and federal employees to be one of the few groups which we don't see racial or gender disparities within. That's kind of impressive. There's no need to explain any sort of gap because as far as the normal distribution, whether you randomly sample blacks or whites you'll get roughly the same results. The fact of the matter is that you're overemphasizing the individual's ability to be rational and make a hiring choice based on merit and not that merit seen through biased lenses. I'm not trying to say most HR managers are racist however almost without exception hiring managers simply rate, hire and promote POC and Women consistently less than their white male counterparts.

My definition of affirmative action: “A quota policy designed to redress past injustices suffered by select minorities through active measures to ensure that that field of business/art/politics etc. reaches demographical parity with the general population.”

Ok, then I would assert again that this in no way is a bad thing. You are of the opinion this is a bad thing, how about delving into the studies surrounding the issue?

Equality of opportunity does not and should not be considered synonymous with equality of out-come.

No one is saying equality of opportunity should be synonymous with out-come. We are saying the bias of the outcome is an obvious indictment of the disparity in opportunity individuals recieve. There is literally only one other hypothesis you can hold and that is that the bias of the outcome is the result of disparity in inherent abilities of individuals. Which is to say, the first argument assumes human population distribution are independent of race, gender or class, the second assumes that race, gender or class is the result of inherent abilities. You don't have another option to choose from here which is part of the issue. We know you're not trying to prove blacks are inferior to whites so personally I'm feeling some odd cognitive dissonance in that what you're arguing should agree with me. Where is your third option? More importantly how does it make any sense whatsoever?

If some individuals who happen to be women happen to prefer the notion of raising a family as a stay at home parent rather than pursue a career, (or a man may prefer that).

I don't have a problem with that assuming their choice to choose a family is not indicative of being trapped in expectations but rather because of genuine desire. This is one of the big issues we encounter with the patriarchial systems that modern government is based on. We like to assume that people's choices are free of environmental considerations but they are not. Imagine a child who is told they're stupid their entire life versus a child told they're smart; even if both children have the same actual skill their behaviors will be dramatically different as a result of these expectations. Yes, these environmental influences can be overcome and a rare few break all expectations, however we're not talking about the minority that breaks the molds both ways but rather the vast majority of people who do not.

Or some ethnic group with historical ties to agrarian industry; wanting to pursue that to the detriment of other possible goals.

Correct, but if his desire to be a farmer is because society has told him that's all he could do, it's different than if he chooses to be a farmer to the exclusion of other choices he's considered.

There thousands of reasons why the demographics of particular fields don’t and shouldn’t represent the demographics of the wider population: personal and individual choice are more important

This is not really what psychology or sociology tells us. For the most part human pathologies are predicated upon desperation. Desperation is a perception that you're not doing as well as you should. Whole swaths of the population are compared to averages which lead to achievement expectations that are dramatically higher. On average black individuals earn 59% what their white counterparts do, yet both groups have roughly the same expectation. Attempting to say that it's the personal choice to make 41% less on average is ridiculous. Whites make some 27,000$ more yearly than blacks do, their net value is more than 5 times greater. You're talking about a bias shift that is frankly extraordinary and are trying to sell that most of this gap is personal choice. Personally, I find it hard to believe that people are that stupid and if they legitimately are we need to address the causes of society that are leading to such enormous differences in perspective on self-worth and potential success.

(even though they are influenced by Past injustices bla bla bla) than utopian ideals of we’re literally all the same and should all have representatives of “our group” in all fields even if the aspiration of those individuals aren’t up to par.

There is no utopian ideal that individuals are all the same. Frankly Himster I don't think you understand what a normal distribution is nor what I'm talking about.

You have population A:



The normal distribution represents ALL potential outcomes in a gradient.

I.E. we can take the normal distribution and apply it directly to the population. The mean income value of whites represents our center 0 mark, roughly speaking 68.2% of the population will be within one standard deviation of that. However mean often is skewed by outliers, perhaps a better measure of income is the median income. We can put whites at $55,412 (2011), this means that 68.2% of the population will make within 1 standard deviation $55,412.

Let's check this:
14,999 and below:10.9%
24,999: 10.5%
34,999: 10.3%
49,999: 13.7%
74,999: 18.2%
99,999: 12.4%
100,000: 13.3%

Between 55,412 and ~20,000 is 1 standard deviation, between 55,412 and 90,000 is 1 standard deviation. From our normal distribution we know that roughly 68-70% of the population should be here. ~5.25%+10.3%+13.7%+18.2%+7.44 ~55%. That's interesting, we see roughly 55% of whites within 1 standard deviation from the median average. This displays to us two potential answers, a bias to the right or a bias to the left. If left represents negative numbers we can see that white income is highly biased towards the right. Admittedly I'm using the standard deviation for the average population not the standard deviation for whites.

Let's do the same thing with blacks
14,999 and below:25.62
24,999: 15
34,999: 12.2%
49,999: 13.5%
74,999: 15.3%
99,999: 8%
100,000: 6.83%

Median income is 32,229 (2011), using the standard deviation for the average population we discover roughly 68-70% should be making between $5,000 and $67,000

16.9+15+12.2+13.5+10.7 = 67.9 Interestingly the black population does seem to fit this normal distribution, where it gets problematic is that the black population is skewed significantly.

The same thing can be done with hispanics.



Look at those trend lines, the bias is real.

Why is a normal distribution important? A normal distribution represents the ratio that a population should follow in presentation, there's many things which are in fact normally distributed blood pressure is a great example. While it's possible that you may have 170 over 120 blood pressure normally, following from the normal distribution the probability that you have a normal blood pressure of 170 over 120 is very small (more than 2 standard deviations from the norm of 120/80). Interestingly the normal distribution of blood pressure is skewed in first world nations with more people presenting higher blood pressures, this is the bias of first world access to food. Roughly speaking, anything with multiple possible answers should follow a normal distribution. Population growth, height, weight, size, earning potential, job security, net value, net worth, criminality and etc etc etc etc. Pretty much everything we do should follow a normal distribution.

Challenges to normal distribution? It's not relevant to individuals, while normal distributions can identify what is your probability of having X property or result, they cannot indicate which individuals will be subject to X property. I.E. we know that out of 100 individuals randomly sampled roughly 3-6 should be homosexual if bias does not exist. We cannot use this prediction to indicate which of the 100 the homosexual is, only that within a 100 people some of them will present as homosexual. This I feel is your biggest problem with the concept, you keep trying to use these macroscopic devices to render individual action irrelevant. This is not the case, in fact without individual action there would be no normal distribution.



Here is the normal distribution of climate. The reason we know that climate change is real is because of observation of the bias of this normal distribution when compared historically.

“Demographic” representation should represent individuals who merit those positions, regardless of race, gender, whether they have red hair, finger size, sexual preference or any other arbitrary attribute you wish to generate generalized groups with.

Agreed. If what you say is occuring in society then BY DEFINITION the normal distribution of a random sampling of people with be the same without regard to race, gender or etc. The fact that the normal distribution changes dramatically with respect to these affiliations indicates bias of somesort. So, since by definition this is not what is occurring and overt racism is illegal, wherefore extends the gap?

Political representation: Women. So, they have the majority of voting representation, all of the opportunities are there, the desire for actual change by the majority of people. Slow and incremental change being put in place, slowly but surely. Winning; winning; winning on every front.

It strikes me as odd that we call it winning when we finally give them a chance to play the game on fair terms. Barriers to gender are definitely being broken down.

What’s the problem? Waaa, it’s too slow (I’m not doing an impression of you, it’s one of those Tumblr :wub:s)

I would suggest you look at Irish assimilation. The speed at which we fix these issues can happen dramatically faster than it has. My issue however is that women's and race issues have progressed about as far as the legislature will take them. At this point the sort of racism that exists is the type of stuff for example that the vague feeling black people are more criminal than whites extends from or the vague feeling that blacks are less competent than whites. When we overtly call those behaviors out few of us would defend them. However we do know that most of us feel them.

wa wa wa wa, patriarchy, wa, rape culture, wa, systematic oppression of women in all spaces including spaces run by and for women, internalized patriarchy of women daring to want to be stay at home moms bla bla bla

I find it interesting the things you choose to "whine" about are not in fact examples of it taking too long but real examples of oppressions women experience. Internalized patriarchy can be proven in a variety of ways, the simplest is challenge experiments using babies. Male and female babies are dressed to look the opposite gender and babysitters/daycare workers etc who interact with the children are monitored. I think the largest hold out of old world patriarchy in our modern society is the perception of fragility of women that causes the average person to challenge a male baby dressed as a female 33% less than if they were dressed in their normal clothing. Rape culture is exactly what I was talking about when the court case of prosecuting rape can be invalidated by proving that the female in question was under the influence. If you're a male you've encountered rape culture. Getting girls drunk for sex? Rape culture. Pushing through no's, not asking consent, and a whole lot of other manisms are quintessentially rape culture promoters.

Okay, that was a rant that went on for too long: representation of women in politics: Yeah, it’s getting better, it’s not perfect, or even good IMO, but the level of whinging, the scale and exaggerated hysteria of it is just so absurd, it literally makes it impossible to discuss these issues reasonably and publically. Other than what we’re doing now, but even this can only for so far and for so long, also we don’t have so many hysterical “tumblrites” on this forum, so it’s not exactly representative of discussions in the wider internet/world.

I think that the number of tublrites (whatever that is) in your mind is over-represented by the nature of controversy, the more controversial something is the more attention it gets. Power privilege and oppression was controversial scientifically in the 1960's. It hasn't been for at least 30 years. It's only become a recent source of controversy because the concept is transitioning from academia to public knowledge.

They are useful to an extent, but these groups re still comprised of individuals, with individual aspirations.

True.

We cannot predict (except in the most general sort of way) what demographic representation should be without being able to read their minds.

False. In the same way we don't need to be able to predict which particle will radiate to calculate half life we do not need individual minds to calculate relevant data on outcomes. Yes we can never predict which individual will choose something or do something, however we can say that in a population of 1000 randomly selected X will have A traits and Y will have B traits. We can also say that departure from this normal distribution indicates some sort of bias, whether that's genetic, resource based, political representation, environmental circumstances or etc, the bias is real.

To highlight arbitrary groups and supposed/projected demographic representation over individual aspiration: plays directly into the hands of racists.

No it doesn't. In fact you're playing into the hands of racists, you can tell by reading the other responses to this thread.

You don’t remedy the problem that meritocracy is currently taking a back seat (due to biases(which are lessening)) by enforcing a quota system

No one said a quota system was necessary, I said a quota system could work. I stand by it and it is scientifically supported. However I don't believe that is the ideal solution. The ideal solution I believe is to teach the scientific method of deconstructing biases into root causes. If individuals can recognize that they have a bias, and why they might have that bias they prove to be remarkable at not acting upon those biases.

that achieves the same (if mirrored) result, an unmeritocratic system

You're talking about reverse racism, AA returns the bias to the 0 point, Reverse Racism passes that origin and goes the opposite direction.

where favoured ethnic/gender attributes have simply been swapped

That's not what we're doing or talking about, have fun with that strawman.

True meritocracy requires a complete rejection of racial/gender myths, not just a mirror version of traditional racial/gender myths.

I would say true meritocracy requires an equity of opportunity and elimination of differential barriers to achievement. Deconstructing these gender/racial myths is exactly what social justice is all about. It's not about imposing other false gender/race myths, it is about admitting to the real difference, admitting to the real relative oppression, and imagining the effects that oppression has on their potential behaviors. It's no different than imagining what your life would be like without a personal computer. Sure you may have used the computer at times but you have to admit many things you take for granted would change without access to a computer. What do you think the result is for entire demographics who can't afford a personal computer?

This takes time, rushing it with dramatic, quick and relatively easy quota-enforcing does more harm than good

No it doesn't. Again I'm not pushing for quotas. Again you're making unqualified and patently false statements about affirmative action. Affirmative action as you initially defined it is different than whatever type of affirmative action you're describing here.

regardless of good intentions.

No one is suggesting good intentions are enough.

As for colorblindness: I don’t agree with your definition that colorblindness rejects the existence of racism, it a rejection of the notion that race should matter.

Correct. However you're missing the practical application. Practical application of a color-blind perspective rejects the notion that race matters, let's try and dissect the south carolina massacre without the notion that race matters. Faux news is a perfect example of color-blind ideology applied to a system where society itself is not color blind. If you advance a color-blind perspective without normalizing the population the only thing you will do is burry the real differences. Color-blindness perspectives work great in an assimilated population and are the natural end point of assimilation, however color-blindness can only be appropriately acted upon when assimilation has occurred. Assimilation cannot occur without normalization. I.E. because there's racial issues in the world and the community you're directly involved in holding a perspective that race doesn't matter diminishes the rather obvious fact that while it doesn't seem to matter to white people it seems to matter a whole lot if you're black. By holding a color-blind perspective you're saying no, the reason you're there making 60 cents on the dollar is because you don't deserve more.

I think this is something that you subscribe to, if slightly unwillingly. It’s perfectly possible to reject race as an issue concerning one’s personal perception, while recognizing the fact that racism persists in certain parts of the wider culture.

Colorblindness, as I was talking about it has to do with the later part. I've never heard someone say that society should not be without regards to gender/race except rare revolutionaries, so I would suggest that everyone is inherently colorblind and in doing so colorblind is a useless and rigorless term. Personally I would only use colorblind to describe something which differs from the norm and the colorblindness i'm describing is the inappropriate application a colorblind perspective to real world which sees color.

Colorblindness is a notion that needs to be spread, proselytized from the highest steeples of secular thought.

You mean egalitarianism. Colorblindness implies an entirely different philosophical perspective to the one you seem to be advancing, I would suggest you stop calling it colorblindness or you'll confuse and enrage a lot of people if the subject ever comes up.

Your perceived implications of an equal society: It doesn’t mean that if left handed people make up x% of the population, they will therefore make up x% of doctor demographics.

Actually that's exactly what population dynamics implies, unless there's a reason for it to not. The fact that despite rather high distribution of left handers in the medical feild is a scientific curiosity for precisely the reason that it does not fit the normal distribution of the population. There's several factors suggested for this, 1. Left Handers are more Intelligent 2. Left Handers are challenged more by society 3. Left handers are more likely to be empathetic. Scientifically we know that the distribution of right vs left is exactly 50/50 genetically, which means society dictates whether we're right or left handed. Society prefers right thus most learn to be right handed. This is combined with two very important skills, the ability to invert images and manipulate 3 dimensional representations in their head, being able to do this makes learning from a right-handed person as a left-handed person possible. Finally we encounter a fundamental difference which by it's nature makes people more empathetic and tolerant of others. In general we can say that the reason doctors are more likely to be left-handed than the general population is that left-handed people care more about others, are intelligent and independent.

There are too many variables to take into account, the most unaccountable being: individual-personal-thought, individual-personal-desire. Even Big Brother can’t control or adequately account for that.

No, we find it easy to control for individual thought because individual thought when averaged in relation to probability of choice follows... wait for it... a normal distribution! This is why for example when we survey people we can control for the inherent bias of individuals putting false answers into the survey.

Anyone who does not subscribe to "Social Justice" is instantly not an Academic it seems.

I would question what the term academic has do to with anything. Who cares who is an academic and who is not, what is important is the argument they advance.

The word you're looking for is don, not dawn. No offense intended, as its rare.

Do you feel better now?

In my (live, actual) experience, gentrification, although it may be the result of central planning, is the natural result of the hipster crowd, i.e. young people with financial backing, moving into low-rent urban neighbourhoods, businesses catering to their demands following, and then rich people who're attracted to the young, hip, ethnically "diverse" "scene" feel.

That is not the case. I think you need to look at stores which are the same in rich and poor neighborhoods. WalMart is an excellent example. In poor neighborhoods the company changes dramatically the exterior and goods within the store itself. This means that while a walmart in a poor neighborhood might drive the property value down a walmart in a rich neighborhood might actually increase the property value. Why does walmart do this? Multiple reasons, first in order to be approved to build the building in city limits they have to get approval of the city council. In order to be approved by the city council they have to adhere to certain guidelines and expectations. Those guidelines and expectations are largely driven by the relative value of the property in the area. I.E. A city council is unlikely to place a dump in a rich neighborhood but has little difficulty doing so in a poor one. Another example is mass transit, it's common for cities here to outlaw mass transit to prevent minority groups from moving into an area. This is even reinforced by the justice system.

By whom? If you think it's the result of a conspiracy, you'd better source it.

Learn something:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

and:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

How's it scientific?

This concept is rooted in the following scientific concepts:

Psychology:
Biological model of behavior
Cognitive-behavorial model

Psychology of Learning:
Adult learning theory
Critical learning theory
Service learning theory

Social Justice Theory:
Hunter Lewis
John Rawls
Thomas Pogge

Sociology:
Population dynamics
Demographics
Power
Privilege
Oppression

Mathematic Concepts:
Differential Outcomes
Feedback loops (positive)
Normal distribution

I'll expand on this later, I'm working on compiling a new OP which highlights exactly these details.

Here's an even better one: find me a non-western nation without these.

I can't. Hence my point.

What.

Critical Learning Theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy

Once again, I take issue with that word. It's really no better than "the n word", since it's just about the only racial insult to consistently be censored on internet sites, in a massive display of double standards.

Yes it is, one is an internationally recognized pejorative, one is a clinical term. In fact it's so charged in the U.S. that it has been added to the list of "fighting words" or words which if said imply immiment concern for your personal welfare. I.E. a black person called the "n word" in the U.S. attacking the person who called them that is considered self-defense. Of course the rarity of any convictions of this law belay it's ineffectiveness but it's interesting that despite the conservative roots here we were still able to pass a law like that.

That said, they don't have to. "People of colour", as you call them, aren't native to Europe (native Europeans are various shades of "white" or "ambiguously brown").

Native to europe in what ways? The modern Genotypes of europe aren't native either, in fact most places have had entire populations and cultures supplanted multiple times in what seems to be waves of colonization, imperialism and colonization. Current make up of europe has little to nothing do with historical make up. Culture under the rule of Rome was far more diverse than the europe which came after. Durring Rome POC (light olive tone) dominated with whiter germans and celts being of obvious barbarian heritage. After the fall of Rome Europe was largely dominated by Black and Middle Eastern cultures. Only after the fall of the arabs did the celts, germans, franks etc. ever become respectable peoples.

However in every country in the world black people are discriminated against. The concept is called shadism and it's the interesting effect that white cultural exportation has had on the rest of the world. Essentially speaking, every culture in the world has started to view white as the standard of beauty. This is most shocking in middle eastern and african countries (especially given their hostility to overt western culture) where celebrities are several shades lighter than the average, skin bleaching is one of the most common causes of cancer in middle eastern countries.

Of course they have to work harder to be accepted by the locals.

OMIGOD did you just say that they were oppressed? Work harder to be accepted which means that they start at a inconvenienced spot relative to their white counterparts. Great job. Yes they are oppressed.

What you seem to be entirely unaware of is that there are "affirmative action" laws of sorts in place, at least in Germany, to entice companies to preferentially hire women and "minorities" (referring to non-native, rather than to native ones). Despite the fact that it's against the Constitution (Grundgesetz). But that's OK, because "fck" the constitution and democracy.

Yes I know of Affirmative Action laws in Germany but I do not consider them to be the same as reverse racism. Affirmative Action only controls for inherent bias returning that to 0, i.e. evens the playing field. For preferential treatment to be given you would have to show that the law increases their gains past this bias point at which point you could argue reverse racism. Unfortunately germany is a great example of affirmative action laws working and working well to eliminate racial and gender disparities. What's more interesting is the longer the laws are in place the less they're needed.

And now, please find me the Asian country that is this wonderland for black people.

There is none. That's exactly my point.

See above?

Because American Studies is a huge major and discpline in Europe.

Oh dear. You wanna discuss history. OK. Source?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting a source on. The only "white" oppression I can think of in history was the brief stint of Arab oppression after the Dark Ages. What examples can you think of? Asian culture, while superior for a long time, never truly oppressed white society due to their isolationist tendancies.

See, the problem I have right there is the use of words like "inadvertently" or "unconsciously".

Why?

If you criminalize inadvertent or unconscious acts, you open Pandora's Box.

Who is suggesting criminalizing inadvertent or unconscious acts?

You can't punish people for acting foolishly or being unaware of something, otherwise we'd all be dead.

Actually in the U.S. ignorance is not a defense (unless you're a cop), but I get what you're saying. I would never suggest that any of this be classified as a thought crime.

This is problematic because even in the US, it being a very young country, you have different dialects of English. Are you sure this is always about sociolects and not dialects? Also, similar biases towards certain dialects (and the people speaking them) are common.

A sociolect is a dialect spoken by a social group. A dialect is a system of language spoken by a region or social group. They're the same word. I would argue against the idea that there's multiple dialects of english spoken in the U.S. if you were to really push for this idea you might be able to get the following:

1. Western English - slow spoken, thorough enuciation (Evolution of British English)
2. Eastern English - fast spoken, ample use of linguistic shortcuts (Evolution of Urban English with german, russian, irish, french, italian and spanish influences)
3. Southern English - slow drawl, spoken in a singsong manner (Influence of spanish/french on english)
4. Middle English - higher pitch, spoken with inflection in the middle of the word (Canadian English)

Any of those four 'dialects' (they're really accents because we're not using different words) are acceptable in the U.S. On the other hand Eubonics is the dialect or sociolect spoken predominantly by Impoverished Urban Blacks, most of it is really just a form of shorthand for english and some pronouciation issues. For example without mentorship children often have difficulty pronoucing TH in The, in black households with the majority having both parents working the ability to sit down and focus on proper english is not a luxury many have which means simply because of the difference in freetime between black and white parents we see some pretty major differences in linguistic understanding.

Now this is actually insulting. The first sentence, that is - the second one is just absurd. You're saying "jeez, Himster, just between you and me, do you want to be associated with this retard?"

Ok let's talk about your perception that running from police is a black rite of initiation in a serious context then because I was assuming you were just being racist for racist sake. Let's assume that it's true that this perception exists. Perceptions are learned, where did black children learn this behavior? Black media? Is there such a thing? Not really. White media sold to blacks? Yes. Regardless the perception that you should run from the cops represents a cultural oppression because our society does not appreciate individuals who flee from the police. i.e. the behavior of running from the cops is causing a problem in the black population. The critical question I want you to answer is where does this behavior come from?

As far as association, I would put it more akin to, "jeez Himster, just between you and me do you want to be associated with these racist perspectives?"

I'd advise you to take that back

No?

I was just relating what I've seen reported in American media.

Source?

No, it's the same. People in Europe who emulate that style are usually up to no good, or are lowlifes. That's the public perception, anyway.

Correct. People who emulate that style. The connection you're missing is that for some people that style isn't about being up to no good but rather what can be afforded. Furthermore it should be noted that there's a massive difference in perception that goes along with the color of the person. Again, a black person dressing that way is a criminal, a thug, a gangster, a white person wearing that is likely a 'poser' who is up to no good. The difference between "Up to no good" and "automatic criminal" is huge.

Race transcends national origin, as does "gender".

I didn't say they didn't, I simply pointed out that being a woman, different nationality or different color means you become the representative of your entire group.

Yurp, the country where all people are the same and white privilege is from. IOW, Germany (not Paris - the other European country).

Germany is rather light on the white privilege, most of their differentiation has consisted of nationalism as opposed to race. I would say the worst places for white privilege are any previous English Colony. In the U.S. english imperialism's only obvious targets were of differing genders or race which is why racism became such a huge issue in the U.S. That's not to say there's not white privilege in Germany just that the situation in the U.S. is considered wholly unacceptable by most Germans who consider Americans to be more than a little racist.

Only in America. If at all.

Perhaps, however it's pretty common in most western countries for the "average" individual to be white. I think the issue of nationality in America long ago became moot as long as you're white.

What, that young black Americans are statistically more likely than other American youths to commit crime, or that men are more likely to commit violent crime (particularly against strangers) than women?

The first part, control for socioeconomic status and education and you'll see the more likely change to just as likely.

The unfairness refers to the individual man, black or not, if he's innocent of the crimes he's statistically more likely to commit.

Correct again. The oppression is an effect felt by the entire group. The individual result of this oppression is unfair regardless of his race.

What, the Tsarnayev brothers weren't ever described as terrorists after being identified? That's hard to believe.

There was a lot of hesitation initially to call the attack terrorism. The U.S. govt still doesn't consider the attack to be terrorist which is why insurance companies aren't paying out like it was. Some media outlets have described it as terrorism others argue that they weren't. It's a moot point, were they to be POC we would have immediately deemed them terrorists.

What about Kike, Dago, Limey etc.?

Kike, a term for jews, not used in modern American Vernacular anymore, considered offensive although few americans know what it means anymore

Dago, a term for Italians, I've never actually heard this one.

Limey, a term for Englishmen who carried limes on their ships to prevent scurvy. Not considered a pejorative within the U.S. and is most often used in endearing terms.

As far as modern terms you've got Honky and Cracker. Honky represents a redneck, Cracker represents an urban white person. There is no real term for the majority of white people.

Mexicans are ethnically mostly Native American, and their culture may derive from the Spanish one, but it has local elements.

Hispanic means spanish speaking. Not a great way to define one group from another but the definition is literally the culture of spanish.

According to your logic, the Spanish should resent the Latin American adoption of their language because of the ethnic differences.

They do. In fact it's one of the ways you can get in trouble traveling through spanish speaking countries, assuming Latin American dialects or Spanish dialects is an easy way to to offend the locals. Spanish people, just like english people, consider their version of the language to be 'true' or correct. This is more codefied in that Spanish is a very specific language in these countries often controlled and defined of by the state i.e. Mexico's government might want to get rid of a spanish letter while Spain does not. The U.S. on the other hand has no legal language of state.

Appropriation occurs when a power group adopts the culture of an oppressed group, imperialism occurs when the power group disseminates it's culture to an oppressed group. The spanish culture of latin America is the result of imperialism not cultural appropriation. Again however I would say the argument about appropriation is relatively weak in the first place. The central idea is that the traits by which someone defines themselves are internalized as direct representations of that individual and when those traits are threatened, misused or subject of ridicule people feel bad. Don't make people feel bad (if you can help it) by appropriating culture.

Or to take another example, African Americans should be mad at Jazz connoisseurs in Europe, Europeans should be mad at Americans for stealing our ideas and technologies, etc.

There's a very deep resentment between African Americans and the rest of the world for Jazz, Bluegrass, Rap, Rock and etc. The music industry typifies a great example of cultural appropriation in the bad way. Essentially speaking, it's relatively rare that when a group creates an artistic form of expression that they don't retain control of that form of media, in the case of music, black music has been stolen rather shamelessly and repackaged for white audiences while not offering any of the benefits to black society i.e. white people owned the records, owned the music and took the profits.

Then what do you define as such?

Cultural appropriation is the use by a power group of certain elements contributing to the identity of an oppressed group in a way which further oppresses the group. Most of the time appropriation is a minor thing such as a white person wearing a sombraro for fun. Othertimes such as the music industry it's an entire system which exploits the knowledge and ideas of a culture for profit while insulating those profits from said culture.

Any and all adaptation of cultural elements, or just the ones done for laughs? If the latter be the case (I hope so. Otherwise, you'd be arguing for segregation), how then do you judge what is done in genuine affection and what is appropriated for shtz and giggles?

Again, I don't care about cultural appropriation. The music industry was a good example you brought up which highlights the issues of cultural appropriation but for the most part I feel cultural appropriation is done in an innocent way by those who find genuine interest in other cultures. I'm not interested in segregation and that's my chief issue with cultural appropriation, I feel that the cultural appropriation argument could be made exactly the same way that marriage is a christian tradition argument is made. I don't care if it's a tradition. Assimilation at some point leads to cultural appropriation to the degree that cultural differences cease to exist.

What, you want me to cite that policemen know crime statistics? You seem to believe that police in your country routinely, with malicious intent, target certain demographics. That assumption should be proven first. Are you sure you're talking about the USA here?

That assumption is already proven here. I've demonstrated it in numerous ways. What standards are you requiring? Do you want differences in biases as measured by harvard? Do you want differences in shoot don't shoot exercises? Do you want differences in numbers of stops? Do you want differences in harassment? Do you want differences in conviction? Not only do all of these numbers exist they all paint a stark reality that black people are routinely oppressed by the 'normal operation' of our justice system. Malicious intent is irrelevant, if you take 150 milliseconds longer to decide if a POC safe or not, regardless of your professed beliefs that POC aren't more dangerous the result of that delay will inevitably MORE killing of innocent black people relative to whites. Which is exactly what we see. 37.5 % of innmates are black, 13.7% of the population is black. It feels like your suggesting that black people are three times more criminal than they should be and that whites are half as criminal or six times less criminal than blacks i.e. what the base statistics say. That's ridiculous and you know it.

So if a Russian or Romanian person complains about Eastern European slavery (which has been a thing for millennia, and unlike African American slavery it's still going on, to some degree) in America, do you people listen to them, or does nobody care?

First off, a complaint is pretty much always valid. We'd listen to an irish immigrant talk about indentured servitude to his german and english peergroups. The difference is the system set up. To establish white people with rights it was the flick of a pen, to give those same rights to black people it required the bloodiest war besides the worldwars that America has ever seen. So no, while I wouldn't ignore and say no one cares, their particular issue doesn't come close to the relevance or impact that black slavery has had on the course of racial relations in the U.S. Segregation was legal here until the 1960's. I'm assuming you don't know who Nathan Bedford is, he's credited with founding the KKK, tell me, do you have memorials dedicated to Nazi's still in your public buildings? I'd be surprised if you did. Nathan Bedford's statue adorns many public parks throughout the south.

That said, I do agree that there's massive hypocrisy and ignorance going on concerning these matters - for example, people getting the victim numbers of the Holocaust wrong (they forget the 5 million non-Jews). While I also agree is that one should remember atrocities of the past, one shouldn't build one's identity on them, or use them to demand social privileges. What I take issue with is how the word "slavery" is always meant to represent the American experience.

I don't think anyone builds their identity off of these things but the scars are still left. I don't think anyone should use them to justify social privileges either. However I do think they serve to point out what sort of privileges the majority takes for granted which the minorities cannot. Frankly we're still recovering from the damage we did to our society with slavery and part of that is the perception that a certain race is subhuman.

No thanks, no time.

So much for reverse examples then.

Absolutely true. Ever tried it yet?

Been to Africa? Yes. I worked with Doctors without Borders for about a year. We went to impoverished countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia to perform medical services. I was never made to worry about my whiteness except in one case where black individuals felt the need to defer to me when it came to entering/exiting and riding the bus. When asked about it they explained it was habitual from the days of apartheid where blacks could be beaten within an inch of their life for disrespecting whites, and thus, until they hear my accent, most africans simply capitulate to what they expect is expected of them, upon discovering I was an American they adored me.

"White privilege" in those parts means that everyone assumes you're rich just because of your skin colour, and they try to scam the hell out of you. Even positive experiences won't make you forget that visually, you're sticking out like a sore thumb.

The assumption that you're rich versus the assumption that you're poor. I wonder which is worse? In fact I would say assuming someone is rich is very rarely a bad thing while assuming they are poor is almost always a bad thing. Perhaps that's my rich privilege talking.

South Africa is different because not only has it only recently been colonized by either black or white people, but it also has a significant white population.

Apartheid, read about it.

By whom? It implies that white people are set apart from the rest, which is by definition racist. Besides, the only people without colour are actually Albinos. Who are more likely to exist in Africa, ironically.

The definition of Racism is power and discrimination. You cannot be racist without power to inflict your perspectives on the group you're being racist towards. Setting people apart from the rest is called cataloging, something science is very happy to do for rigorous categories. People of Color is the preferred term because it recognizes first that they are people, and second that they are nonwhite. It is preferred to the term nonwhite because nonwhite is defining someone with regards to their whiteness thus, People who are White and People of Color represent the two distinct categories not relying on the other to define itself. I would say in the U.S. without exception this is the preferred term, however this is a wording that's recent enough that it's meaning is different around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika...-apartheid_era

An interesting read I admit, I don't know enough about the specifics to really delve into the current history of South Africa, from the people who were present in 2011 I did not get the sense that there was any real issue of black on white crime however I should note the only white people I knew in South Africa were well off. One thing I did notice was that the farm attacks on whites fall in line with the distribution of black and whites in the population at about 10-20% from 1991 to 2001 which is exactly the proportion of whites in the population at the time. Doesn't really seem convincing of a real white genocide. On the other hand I'm interested to see some of the realities of the South African policy. I will gladly begin to digest this information.

These are had facts, actual privileges granted by federal law, not some fancy theories. That's the difference.

I'm talking hard facts, for the record scientific theory = fact. These theories are based on exactly the same thing. If I can find you examples of laws which perpetuate or promote racial/class/gender privilege would you agree that the theory is real then?

Most SJWs I've encountered (including the ones on this board) or read about were white. Phier seems to have had the same experience. Maybe yours is different - it may depend on the region.

And my question to you would be, who do you hang out with? There's a reason why hispanic and black children in the US are dramatically more aware of racial issues than white children. Phier will say anything as long as it agrees with his political ideology. The fact of the matter is that when Whites at any point in history have agreed with the claims of the SJW, as you so pejoratively refer to them as, change has occurred. When whites agreed with blacks that slavery wasn't right, slavery ended. When men agreed with women that suffrage should be universal, it was. When white people agree with people of color about power and privilege the differences in outcomes associated with being a certain race, gender or class disappear.

Ironic how you as someone employing SJW vocabulary and arguments can be arguing against "personal hurts"...

Not sure what you mean by that.

There is a somewhat ironic truth to that. I'm sure taking an opposing stance would be career suicide at some institutions, making you no longer an Academic. If there is one thing SJW's can't stand, its dissent from their narrative.

This is such a falsity it's ridiculous. In fact you've argued against it in the case of religion, asserted it in the case of climate change, argued against it in the case of nuclear power, argued against it for social justice. Which is it phier? White tower academics driving out dissent? Normal operation of the scientific method? Conspiracy? More importantly what do the conspiracy makers gain from their conspiracies?

In my experience any sort of "conspiracy" which appears in academia is short lived and rarely manages to convince a majority of scientists. Since when is this not the case?

You're insinuating that I'm not an actual American simply because I have different roots than yourself.

Uhm, I'm not sure how that's advancing a with me or against me philosophy. I'm also not sure how I'm asserting you're not an actual American. Being "American" has nothing to do with being white. However being white gives one the privilege of being part of the majority, being part of the majority means you get to define things because definition is a populist negotiation. I wouldn't call someone using a cultural item inappropriately cultural appropriation even if that person (like you) has no connection to their previous heritage. I'm really curious about this one though, how am I insinuating this?

In short: I am not.

I am not Mexican

You're ethnically mexican, if you want to reject that identity or not it's up to you.

I don't speak Spanish

What does that have to do with anything?

and I certainly don't cruise around listening to narco music

Beautiful Border Patrol, with golden examples of racism like this I'm pretty sure someone will get it soon enough. Tell me, what is narco music?

The idea that some sort of Mexican-American culture would follow me around because of the circumstances of my birth is for lack of a better word, troubling.

The culture is a self identification thing, you can escape that. The oppression however is not. So if you're hispanic in ethnicity that means at some point your family immigrated. First generation immigrants are the most oppressed. By the third generation most differences between hispanics and whites disappear. What generation would you be?

Ways that hispanic oppression may follow you:
Police - hispanics are considered to be more criminal despite little evidence
Your name - hispanic names recieve fewer callbacks on applications and are replied to by professors as much as 50% less
Your family's assets - unless you've been here for a few generations it takes quite some time to reach parity from third world status to first world status, having less money directly implies fewer opportunities and luxuries
Your family's education - hispanics are less likely to recieve a higher education
Your group association - Not saying I was a terribly racist highschooler but I certainly never let Lopez forget he was hispanic despite him being white in almost every other way.

That's not at all the argument I've seen you put forth in the thread.

I've said it explicitly multiple times now. Maybe your english isn't as good as you thought? Hispanic oppression?

Again, my culture is American. I'm not Mexican-American. I'm not Spanish-American. I'm American.

Culture is self-identified, and based on heritage. You have claim to the culture due to your heritage regardless of if you currently identify with it or not. However I don't care about cultural appropriation, I'm not going to argue against cultural appropriation because I feel that it's a neutral topic which can be good or bad depending on how to occurs. I believe it's fundamentally necessary for assimilation.

Am I the first hispanic you've talked to before?

Sure. Let's go with that.

I am an upstanding citizen, and thus far all my interactions with the police have gone just peachy.

That's fortunate. My friend Lopez was a third generation Latino, he got arrested for getting into a fight at school, the school charged him with gang violence and escalated it to a Measure 11 assault. Of course in my high school they boldly told hispanics to drop out. It's interesting that you've managed to escape this oppression that is very real for most hispanics.

I can't stress enough how upsetting it is that you are now alienating me from the group

Alienating? You mean how Karl Marx described the proletariate in his theory of communism? I'm separating you from the fruits of your labor? You mean you've labored to be included as white? What was that like? Why is it so important to you? Why do you think you equate white with American and hispanic with not American?

solely on the basis of my skin color

The funny thing here is that you've been alienated your whole life and considering you're from the south, probably a lot more explicitly than you care to admit. You don't need to look further than your local elementary schools and high schools to find perfect examples of oppression of latinos. Regardless, race is self identified too, unfortunately you can never get rid of your skin's oppression.

People such as yourself are the only ones in my life that have ever drawn such arbitrary distinctions around me.

Simply put it's not true. Which state and town do you live in? I'm sure some local examples would make a lot more impact here.

edit: Irvine, California? One of the most extreme conservative vs extreme liberal cities on the westcoast? A place where I can walk down the street and recieve a flyer about white power, immigrants rights and free marijuana in a few minutes?

I mean... I can imagine that you've been whitewashed enough that these outright displays of white power don't bother you but they should, regardless of if you've forgotten your skin color I guarentee they haven't. Be careful in Irvine because you've got some real bad racism there, at the same point it's totally possible to be insulated from it in the suburbs.

[pacifism]

It’s pretty clear that most of us here advocate for political, social, and economic equality. I don’t know about other people, but I consider equality to mean that someone’s class, gender, race etc. shouldn’t affect their treatment in the public sphere in any way. Inversely, any preferential treatment towards someone for those kinds of traits is discriminatorily unequal. This is not to be confused with the fact that different people have different needs in order for them to be their best - i.e. chriscase’s premises.

Maybe a lot of your arguments are you trying to help minorities who were once openly oppressed. But it seems like that sort of advocacy for direct action simply changes the preferential treatment from one category of people to another. That’s why I’m struggling to find common ground with you now. Are you implying that in order to eliminate oppression, we must vote, graduate, and pay people based on their race, gender, or whatever? By my definition, that’s discrimination, just towards different people than it historically was.