4 ms·

There's a very easy answer to your question. It's the understanding that bias/implicit bias exists and needs to be overcome. The MLK quote is such a red herrin

There's a very easy answer to your question. It's the understanding that bias/implicit bias exists and needs to be overcome. The MLK quote is such a red herring. It's a nice statement, but what one guy said 50 years ago doesn't define a culture or society.

lwhalen 9y ago
This "You were born into implicit bias/racism" shtick sounds an awful lot like religion's "You were born into original sin" shtick. The fix is almost identical too: give us money, attention, and spread the word, or else you're extra double-plus ungood and we'll shame you harder.
- JustAnotherPat 9y ago
  So you deny that implicit bias exists? Implicit bias has shown to affect areas as dry as medicine to scientific research, yet racial bias is somehow made up?
  - CWuestefeld 9y ago
    My objection, at least, is that I think for both of jerf's eras, the intended end state is still a race-blind society. And it seems perverse to map out a course to that goal that explicitly requires us to be conscious of race.
    - JustAnotherPat 9y ago
      So you think it is possible to condition people to look at another person and have them never consciously or unconsciously understand them to be white, black, asian, or any other race?
      - CWuestefeld 9y ago
        No, and I don't think that's what's sought. I think what we're looking for is that it's just another attribute, no different from whether the person has blue or green or brown eyes, or what style shoes they're wearing. In a conversation with my boss the other day, a newly-hired AWS engineer came up. I've met him just once, and helped him get situated because his desk is near my team. I realized that although I'd interacted with him to that degree, I had absolutely no recollection of what his race was (describing him was a logical part of that conversation). I think this is what's sought.
jerf 9y ago
"The MLK quote is such a red herring. It's a nice statement, but what one guy said 50 years ago doesn't define a culture or society." You misunderstand my point entirely. I am not "advocating" for that position today. Nor am I not advocating for it. I am staying neutral on the "ought" in this series of posts. I am saying that when I was 10, that was the "left-wing" position. Many people still think it is, because they don't keep up with all this stuff. As you are rather handily demonstrating, it is not today. (I was a bit concerned when I mentioned it that people would just be contrary and deny the patently obvious fact that it is no longer an acceptable left-wing position, but now I don't have to worry about that.) I will also say that the prickliness you've been programmed to fire back with, as evidenced by the rest of your thread, is a non-trivial part of the problem. You've been left unable to understand what anyone is actually saying, instead of what you think they are saying, as evidenced by your reaction to what I wrote. You may prove me wrong by replying to this without bulldoggedly arguing about whether implicit bias exists. Should you succeed I promise to acknowledge that.
- JustAnotherPat 9y ago
  Race-blindness was never the left-wing position, unless your definition of left wing is maybe the feel-good commentary of prominent elected moderate Democrats, who had to appeal to the majority rural white populists. I don't think many or any prominent minority civil rights leaders led on any sort of color blindness platform. In fact, the 70's and 80's were all about embracing blackness. If i were prickly, i'd be making insinuations about you personally.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jerf 9y ago
    Initially, I said you failed. But that's a bit harsh. You succeeded in the letter, but failed at the spirit.

lwhalen 9y ago

This "You were born into implicit bias/racism" shtick sounds an awful lot like religion's "You were born into original sin" shtick. The fix is almost identical too: give us money, attention, and spread the word, or else you're extra double-plus ungood and we'll shame you harder.

JustAnotherPat 9y ago
So you deny that implicit bias exists? Implicit bias has shown to affect areas as dry as medicine to scientific research, yet racial bias is somehow made up?
- CWuestefeld 9y ago
  My objection, at least, is that I think for both of jerf's eras, the intended end state is still a race-blind society. And it seems perverse to map out a course to that goal that explicitly requires us to be conscious of race.
  - JustAnotherPat 9y ago
    So you think it is possible to condition people to look at another person and have them never consciously or unconsciously understand them to be white, black, asian, or any other race?
    - CWuestefeld 9y ago
      No, and I don't think that's what's sought. I think what we're looking for is that it's just another attribute, no different from whether the person has blue or green or brown eyes, or what style shoes they're wearing. In a conversation with my boss the other day, a newly-hired AWS engineer came up. I've met him just once, and helped him get situated because his desk is near my team. I realized that although I'd interacted with him to that degree, I had absolutely no recollection of what his race was (describing him was a logical part of that conversation). I think this is what's sought.

jerf 9y ago

"The MLK quote is such a red herring. It's a nice statement, but what one guy said 50 years ago doesn't define a culture or society." You misunderstand my point entirely. I am not "advocating" for that position today. Nor am I not advocating for it. I am staying neutral on the "ought" in this series of posts. I am saying that when I was 10, that was the "left-wing" position. Many people still think it is, because they don't keep up with all this stuff. As you are rather handily demonstrating, it is not today. (I was a bit concerned when I mentioned it that people would just be contrary and deny the patently obvious fact that it is no longer an acceptable left-wing position, but now I don't have to worry about that.) I will also say that the prickliness you've been programmed to fire back with, as evidenced by the rest of your thread, is a non-trivial part of the problem. You've been left unable to understand what anyone is actually saying, instead of what you think they are saying, as evidenced by your reaction to what I wrote. You may prove me wrong by replying to this without bulldoggedly arguing about whether implicit bias exists. Should you succeed I promise to acknowledge that.

JustAnotherPat 9y ago
Race-blindness was never the left-wing position, unless your definition of left wing is maybe the feel-good commentary of prominent elected moderate Democrats, who had to appeal to the majority rural white populists. I don't think many or any prominent minority civil rights leaders led on any sort of color blindness platform. In fact, the 70's and 80's were all about embracing blackness. If i were prickly, i'd be making insinuations about you personally.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jerf 9y ago
  Initially, I said you failed. But that's a bit harsh. You succeeded in the letter, but failed at the spirit.