6 ms·

Is the NAACP relevant in 2018? Also why is Facebook donating to an openly-biased organisation? Seems weird from my (European) point of view :/

by yunzo 8y ago

tareqak 8y ago
Yes, the NAACP is still relevant in 2018 because the US still has problems with racism in 2018.
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  We do, but it’s a broader problem than simply “minorities incur racism”. Racism manifests in all directions and while it’s valid to have support for minorities, it is nonetheless divisive that our society only takes racism seriously in one direction. All humans face turmoil and struggle because of societal implications, racism simply being one of many. It’s not that the NAACP is wrong or pointless to exist, the problem is that as a society we should try to alleviate the suffering and injustice for all humans rather than grouping people by the millions and thinking that that macroscopic approach is going to solve our problems.
  - tareqak 8y ago
    From the second paragraph of the Wikipedia page on the NAACP [0]: Its mission in the 21st century is "to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination." It looks like all directions are covered. That the NAACP continues to work with the community of people it originally started to assist and advocate only speaks to the amount of inequality that remains in areas such as interactions involving law enforcement, voter suppression, and lack of economic opportunities. Can you please give examples? The controversial one that comes to mind is affirmative action in college admissions. Another one might be diversity and inclusion groups / unconscious bias training in some companies, but I never heard any specific reasons behind the disapproval beyond inexplicable dislike. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP
    - thatoneuser 8y ago
      Well for one we can both hopefully agree that a mission statement doesn’t have to reflect the actions and intentions of an organization. So to cite that as evidence that “all directions are covered” is not valid. Can you show me examples in which the NAACP has benefited racial oppression of whites to support their mission statement? College admissions as you point out are something that can harm marginalized white people, in the sense that there are finite resources in our society. Taking opportunities from one marginalized group to give to another doesn’t move us forward as a whole, it simply shifts where the injustice is. You can abstract this a bit and find other examples with the same pattern. However, this isn’t the intention of my comment per se. The broader point is that focusing on one group and ignoring the others is the problem. Shifting around our agony while we have massive wealth/power inequality is sidestepping the real issue at hand - we have a society in which suffering for the unequal benefit of others is inevitable. Maybe today it’s more on minorities. Maybe tomorrow we switch gears and whites are the greatest to suffer. Choose your linchpin, it doesn’t matter - the point is we need to support all humans. I’d say not even just our own country, but literally create a realistic opportunity for all humans in the world to be able to live within the comfort and privilege that our collective accomplishments have to offer. As long as we keep to our tribal ways of deciding that this group or that group deserves more, we are doomed to swing on this never ending pendulum.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    A good portion of modern day activism does take this "macro" approach by extending the scope of activities further and further for those disadvantaged. There will always be a focus on those more disadvantaged groups, firstly because of the immediacy of their problems, and secondly because of the fact that it's hard to get people to share the same set of aims about society as a whole. In the second half of the 20th century, many (most?) of the movements for anti-racism were also linked with feminist (gender) and socialist (class, or from another angle, your macroscopic vision) movements, and nowadays most such movements are intersectional anyway. I think that's a good thing, while there are good critiques of intersectionalism, even the critiques favour approaches that leverage immediacy and universality.
  - arthur_pryor 8y ago
    > We do, but it’s a broader problem than simply “minorities incur racism”. Racism manifests in all directions and while it’s valid to have support for minorities, it is nonetheless divisive that our society only takes racism seriously in one direction. this implies to me that you believe racism against white people is as much of a problem as racism against minorities. i think this is an absurd claim to make, and i think there is ample concrete evidence in the form of both statistics and anecdotes that shows that racism is much worse for people of color (and yes, in particular, black people). racism against white people is not a serious problem. at this point in our history, we need no organized effort to combat it. > All humans face turmoil and struggle because of societal implications, racism simply being one of many. i don't see how this implies that we should not specifically fight racism. should all problem solving be labeled at only the most general level? should we not have organizations dedicated to fighting racism against minorities because it's only one of the many problems a human might face in the world?
    - thatoneuser 8y ago
      As a white person who has been the direct target of racism - physical and emotional abuse, systemic oppression, social isolation, etc, I hope you can understand that what you are saying is very painful to me. You say that because the suffering of people like me is a minority case (the irony), that my desires for all humans who have been wronged to receive support are negligible. I can tell you that writing this comes at no small expense to my mental state. I have lived with the pain that you would likely attribute to a minority. In fact for much of my life I was a minority. I won’t compare my severity to others, only acknowledge it exists and that it has devastated my life to this point in various ways. I cannot trust society. I cannot trust my partners. I cannot trust my bosses and coworkers (who knows, maybe that’s a perk). I lose many relationships with people I deeply care about because I grew up having to protect myself, and that meant never allowing myself to grow attached to someone less they turn on me too. I’m not writing this to you to convince you to change your mind. I’ve learned long ago that people who can’t conceive of white people being victims of racism, and who refuse to acknowledge their needs, are not going to change their minds. They will only dig and dig until the white victim is broken enough to not voice their concerns. At least, that has been my overwhelming experience. From strangers to friends to romantic partners. Everyone who can’t entertain these thoughts and who immediately jump to “where’s your evidence? White people aren’t victims!” - they don’t want a conversation. They want to validate their long held beliefs about how racism “really works”. I don’t write this for you, I write this as a form of catharsis to myself and to hope that I can be strong enough to improve my situation and help others who are marginalized but rejected. I have cried the entirety of writing this. Having this relentless pressure for defending the idea that whites are the victims of racism too is agony. You claim “Racism against white people is not a serious problem”. Every time I have to fight this I relive those experiences. Every time I have to go back to those memories to articulate myself, it awakens that pain. But I won’t stop talking about this pain because stopping means that racism against white victims, the disregard and disbelief of their struggle, will continue unchecked and likely grow. That is not acceptable. Racism in any form is not acceptable. All humans deserve a fair and healthy life. And there’s no fucking reason that in the age of big data and globalized computational efforts that we can’t do better than lumping people into groups of tens of millions and saying “well that’s all the better resolution we can get”. It’s irresponsible. It’s evil. And it’s so terrible that that is the world we have decided is acceptable. Care about all humans. Not just the ones that make you feel good to care about.
profunctor 8y ago
What organisation or person is not biased?
azernik 8y ago
It's an advocacy group for a disadvantaged minority. Which is still disadvantaged and still discriminated against, so yes, it's still relevant. And yeah it's biased, it's an advocacy group. Might as well complain about donations to women's rights groups (which companies in Europe make ALL THE TIME).
dang 8y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
thatoneuser 8y ago
Sometimes bias is good. If you have two people - one is suffering (from forces outside their control ie society) and one is doing well, it makes sense to bias aid towards the one suffering. Our society creates winners and losers, and often the terms which determine that outcome really aren’t fair or possibly are just straight up counterproductive (we tend to reward sociopathic behavior for example). That said, I think there can be a more wholistic approach to solving these problems. Instead of saying “x group has problems so we need to focus support for them” it’s maybe better to say “people in x situation have problems so we need to focus support for them”. I think to evaluate each human as the sum of their situations, rather than a lazier approach of what group they belong to, would be a more effective approach to truly solving societal inequality.

Is the NAACP relevant in 2018? Also why is Facebook donating to an openly-biased organisation? Seems weird from my (European) point of view :/

by yunzo 8y ago

Is the NAACP relevant in 2018? Also why is Facebook donating to an openly-biased organisation? Seems weird from my (European) point of view :/

tareqak 8y ago

Yes, the NAACP is still relevant in 2018 because the US still has problems with racism in 2018.

thatoneuser 8y ago
We do, but it’s a broader problem than simply “minorities incur racism”. Racism manifests in all directions and while it’s valid to have support for minorities, it is nonetheless divisive that our society only takes racism seriously in one direction. All humans face turmoil and struggle because of societal implications, racism simply being one of many. It’s not that the NAACP is wrong or pointless to exist, the problem is that as a society we should try to alleviate the suffering and injustice for all humans rather than grouping people by the millions and thinking that that macroscopic approach is going to solve our problems.
- tareqak 8y ago
  From the second paragraph of the Wikipedia page on the NAACP [0]: Its mission in the 21st century is "to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination." It looks like all directions are covered. That the NAACP continues to work with the community of people it originally started to assist and advocate only speaks to the amount of inequality that remains in areas such as interactions involving law enforcement, voter suppression, and lack of economic opportunities. Can you please give examples? The controversial one that comes to mind is affirmative action in college admissions. Another one might be diversity and inclusion groups / unconscious bias training in some companies, but I never heard any specific reasons behind the disapproval beyond inexplicable dislike. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP
  - thatoneuser 8y ago
    Well for one we can both hopefully agree that a mission statement doesn’t have to reflect the actions and intentions of an organization. So to cite that as evidence that “all directions are covered” is not valid. Can you show me examples in which the NAACP has benefited racial oppression of whites to support their mission statement? College admissions as you point out are something that can harm marginalized white people, in the sense that there are finite resources in our society. Taking opportunities from one marginalized group to give to another doesn’t move us forward as a whole, it simply shifts where the injustice is. You can abstract this a bit and find other examples with the same pattern. However, this isn’t the intention of my comment per se. The broader point is that focusing on one group and ignoring the others is the problem. Shifting around our agony while we have massive wealth/power inequality is sidestepping the real issue at hand - we have a society in which suffering for the unequal benefit of others is inevitable. Maybe today it’s more on minorities. Maybe tomorrow we switch gears and whites are the greatest to suffer. Choose your linchpin, it doesn’t matter - the point is we need to support all humans. I’d say not even just our own country, but literally create a realistic opportunity for all humans in the world to be able to live within the comfort and privilege that our collective accomplishments have to offer. As long as we keep to our tribal ways of deciding that this group or that group deserves more, we are doomed to swing on this never ending pendulum.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  A good portion of modern day activism does take this "macro" approach by extending the scope of activities further and further for those disadvantaged. There will always be a focus on those more disadvantaged groups, firstly because of the immediacy of their problems, and secondly because of the fact that it's hard to get people to share the same set of aims about society as a whole. In the second half of the 20th century, many (most?) of the movements for anti-racism were also linked with feminist (gender) and socialist (class, or from another angle, your macroscopic vision) movements, and nowadays most such movements are intersectional anyway. I think that's a good thing, while there are good critiques of intersectionalism, even the critiques favour approaches that leverage immediacy and universality.
- arthur_pryor 8y ago
  > We do, but it’s a broader problem than simply “minorities incur racism”. Racism manifests in all directions and while it’s valid to have support for minorities, it is nonetheless divisive that our society only takes racism seriously in one direction. this implies to me that you believe racism against white people is as much of a problem as racism against minorities. i think this is an absurd claim to make, and i think there is ample concrete evidence in the form of both statistics and anecdotes that shows that racism is much worse for people of color (and yes, in particular, black people). racism against white people is not a serious problem. at this point in our history, we need no organized effort to combat it. > All humans face turmoil and struggle because of societal implications, racism simply being one of many. i don't see how this implies that we should not specifically fight racism. should all problem solving be labeled at only the most general level? should we not have organizations dedicated to fighting racism against minorities because it's only one of the many problems a human might face in the world?
  - thatoneuser 8y ago
    As a white person who has been the direct target of racism - physical and emotional abuse, systemic oppression, social isolation, etc, I hope you can understand that what you are saying is very painful to me. You say that because the suffering of people like me is a minority case (the irony), that my desires for all humans who have been wronged to receive support are negligible. I can tell you that writing this comes at no small expense to my mental state. I have lived with the pain that you would likely attribute to a minority. In fact for much of my life I was a minority. I won’t compare my severity to others, only acknowledge it exists and that it has devastated my life to this point in various ways. I cannot trust society. I cannot trust my partners. I cannot trust my bosses and coworkers (who knows, maybe that’s a perk). I lose many relationships with people I deeply care about because I grew up having to protect myself, and that meant never allowing myself to grow attached to someone less they turn on me too. I’m not writing this to you to convince you to change your mind. I’ve learned long ago that people who can’t conceive of white people being victims of racism, and who refuse to acknowledge their needs, are not going to change their minds. They will only dig and dig until the white victim is broken enough to not voice their concerns. At least, that has been my overwhelming experience. From strangers to friends to romantic partners. Everyone who can’t entertain these thoughts and who immediately jump to “where’s your evidence? White people aren’t victims!” - they don’t want a conversation. They want to validate their long held beliefs about how racism “really works”. I don’t write this for you, I write this as a form of catharsis to myself and to hope that I can be strong enough to improve my situation and help others who are marginalized but rejected. I have cried the entirety of writing this. Having this relentless pressure for defending the idea that whites are the victims of racism too is agony. You claim “Racism against white people is not a serious problem”. Every time I have to fight this I relive those experiences. Every time I have to go back to those memories to articulate myself, it awakens that pain. But I won’t stop talking about this pain because stopping means that racism against white victims, the disregard and disbelief of their struggle, will continue unchecked and likely grow. That is not acceptable. Racism in any form is not acceptable. All humans deserve a fair and healthy life. And there’s no fucking reason that in the age of big data and globalized computational efforts that we can’t do better than lumping people into groups of tens of millions and saying “well that’s all the better resolution we can get”. It’s irresponsible. It’s evil. And it’s so terrible that that is the world we have decided is acceptable. Care about all humans. Not just the ones that make you feel good to care about.

profunctor 8y ago

What organisation or person is not biased?

azernik 8y ago

It's an advocacy group for a disadvantaged minority. Which is still disadvantaged and still discriminated against, so yes, it's still relevant. And yeah it's biased, it's an advocacy group. Might as well complain about donations to women's rights groups (which companies in Europe make ALL THE TIME).

dang 8y ago

Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

thatoneuser 8y ago

Sometimes bias is good. If you have two people - one is suffering (from forces outside their control ie society) and one is doing well, it makes sense to bias aid towards the one suffering. Our society creates winners and losers, and often the terms which determine that outcome really aren’t fair or possibly are just straight up counterproductive (we tend to reward sociopathic behavior for example). That said, I think there can be a more wholistic approach to solving these problems. Instead of saying “x group has problems so we need to focus support for them” it’s maybe better to say “people in x situation have problems so we need to focus support for them”. I think to evaluate each human as the sum of their situations, rather than a lazier approach of what group they belong to, would be a more effective approach to truly solving societal inequality.